Jones v. David, et al

Filing 66

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 5/1/2012 DENYING 65 Motion for Reconsideration. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MALIK JONES,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

vs.

12
13

No. CIV S-09-3174 MCE CKD P

Defendant.

11

A. DAVID,

14

/

15

On April 9, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion asking that this court reconsider the

16
17

March 29, 2012, order adopting the magistrate judge’s December 28, 2011, findings and

18

recommendations thereby dismissing defendant Holmes from 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 as to Holmes. Furthermore, the Court finds that, after a de novo review of this

3

case, the March 29, 2012, order adopting the magistrate judge’s December 28, 2011, findings and

4

recommendations is neither manifestly unjust nor clearly erroneous.

5
6
7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s April 9, 2012, motion for
reconsideration (ECF No. 65) is DENIED.
Dated: May 1, 2012

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

________________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE