Lorretz et al v. Comey et al

Filing 73

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/12/17, DENYING Plaintiff's 43 motion for reconsideration. All other pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DIANNA LEE WALLACH LORRETZ,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 17-cv-00090-TLN-EFB

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

JAMES COMEY, Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

On April 17, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein, which

19

were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and

20

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff filed timely

21

objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 32.) On June 12, 2017, this Court

22

adopted the findings and recommendations, and the first amended complaint was dismissed

23

without leave to amend. (ECF No. 41.) The case was accordingly closed.

24

On June 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document indicating that she opposed the Court’s Order

25

(ECF No. 41) and the closing of her case. (ECF No. 43.) The Court construes this as a motion

26

for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “Under Rule

27

59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,

28

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if

1

there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179

2

F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). The Court has carefully reviewed the entire file, including

3

Plaintiff’s “opposition” (ECF No. 43). The Court still finds the findings and recommendations to

4

be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Simply put, the Rule 59(e) standard is not met

5

here. Consequently, this case is closed.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 43) is denied;

8

2. All other pending motions are denied as moot; and

9

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

10
11

Dated: September 12, 2017

12
13
14

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2