Stribling v. Mott et al

Filing 16

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 08/12/16 denying 15 Motion to alter judgment. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AARON STRIBLING,

12

No. 2:16-cv-0400 CKD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

R. MOTT, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

This action was dismissed without prejudice on June 14, 2016. (ECF No. 13.) Before the
court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the judgment. (ECF No. 15.)

20

A district court1 may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

21

59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

22

1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with

23

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

24

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263. Here, the court’s

25

decision to dismiss this action without prejudice was not clearly erroneous nor manifestly unjust,

26

and none of the other factors apply.

27
28

1

Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in
this action. (ECF No. 5.)
1

1
2
3

Plaintiff is advised that documents filed by plaintiff since the closing date will be
disregarded and no orders will issue in response to future filings.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to alter judgment (ECF

4

No. 15) is denied.

5

Dated: August 12, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10

2 / stri0400.R60(2)

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2