Allen v. Roche et al

Filing 55

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 6/28/12 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 4/11/12 50 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

BRYANT ALLEN,
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13

No. CIV S-09-3068 JAM CKD P

S. M. ROCHE,
Defendant.

14

ORDER
/

15

On April 11, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion asking that this court reconsider the

16
17

March 29, 2012 order adopting the magistrate judge’s December 27, 2011 findings and

18

recommendations thereby dismissing this action.
A district court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil

19
20

Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5

21

F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is

22

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

23

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263.

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////

1

Plaintiff does not present newly discovered evidence suggesting this matter should

2

not be dismissed. Furthermore, the court finds that, after a de novo review of this case, the

3

March 29, 2012 order adopting the magistrate judge’s December 27, 2011 findings and

4

recommendations is neither manifestly unjust nor clearly erroneous.

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s April 11, 2012 motion

6

for reconsideration is denied.

7

DATED: June 28, 2012

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

/s/ John A. Mendez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE