Stribling v. Mott et al

Filing 80

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 10/15/18 DENYING 77 Motion for Reconsideration. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AARON LAMONT STRIBLING,

12

No. 2:16-cv-0400 MCE CKD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

R. MOTT, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
On September 17, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate

17
18

judge’s order filed August 29, 2018, granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s February 12,

19

2018 motion to compel (ECF No. 75). ECF No. 77. Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for

20

reconsideration state “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did

21

not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion;

22

and . . . why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” L.R.

23

230(j)(3)-(4). Plaintiff’s only argument is that he believes the magistrate judge ignored his reply

24

in support of his motion to compel. ECF No. 77. Plaintiff does not put forth any new facts or

25

circumstances and his motion does not meet the requirements for a motion for reconsideration or

26

warrant a different outcome.

27

///

28

///

1
2
3
4

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF
No. 77) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2018

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2