McCarty v. Roos et al

Filing 211

ORDER that 210 Motion for Reconsideration re 209 Order is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/1/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
ROBERT JOSEPH MCCARTY,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
JOHN V. ROOS, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:11-cv-01538-JCM-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Docket No. 210)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order

17

granting in part an denying in part Defendants’ motions to stay. Docket No. 210. Reconsideration

18

of an order is appropriate if the Court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2)

19

committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening

20

change in controlling authority.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. AC&S, Inc., 5 F.3d

21

1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s arguments in his motion for

22

reconsideration and finds that they do not warrant reconsideration of the Court’s order.

23

Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

DATED: October 1, 2013

26
27
28

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge