Hernandez v. Kokor et al

Filing 68

ORDER Granting 66 Motion for Extension of Time, Deeming Plaintiff's Objections Timely Filed, ADOPTING 65 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in Full and Denying 60 Motion Alter or Amend Judgment signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/23/2019. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARIO ANTONIO HERNANDEZ,

12

No. 1:16-cv-00716-DAD-JLT

Plaintiff,

16

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, DEEMING
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TIMELY
FILED, ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

17

(Doc. Nos. 60, 65, 66)

13

v.

14

WINFRED M. KOKOR, et al.,

15

Defendants.

18
19
20

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

21

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

22

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

23

On September 7, 2018, the undersigned adopted the assigned magistrate judge’s findings

24

and recommendations and granted summary judgment in defendants’ favor. (Doc. No. 58.)

25

Judgment was entered that same day. (Doc. No. 59.) On September 21, 2018, plaintiff filed a

26

motion to alter or amend the judgment. (Doc. No. 60.) On December 14, 2018, the magistrate

27

judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s motion be denied.

28

(Doc. No. 65.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained
1

1

notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen days. (Doc. 65.) After requesting an

2

extension of time, plaintiff filed objections on January 16, 2019, which the court deems timely

3

filed. (Doc. Nos. 66, 67.)

4

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a

5

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

6

objections, the undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by

7

the record and by proper analysis.

8
9

Plaintiff’s motion and objections generally restate the arguments he advanced in
opposition to summary judgment, which the court has already rejected. Moreover, as noted in the

10

findings and recommendations, plaintiff’s motion fails to present newly discovered evidence,

11

demonstrate clear error, or put forward an intervening change of law. See Wood v. Ryan, 759

12

F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014). Finally, plaintiff fails to explain what new or different facts or

13

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not previously shown, and why

14

those facts and circumstances were not shown at the time. L.R. 230(j).

15

Accordingly,

16

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Doc. 66) is granted;

17

2.

Plaintiff’s objections are deemed timely filed;

18

3.

The findings and recommendations issued on December 14, 2018 (Doc. 65) are

19
20
21
22
23

adopted in full; and
4.

Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. 60) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 23, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2