Opinion
No. CV-18-08016-PCT-ESW
07-20-2018
Paul Felix Mason, III, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO THE HON. STEPHEN M. McNAMEE, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
On June 26, 2018, the Court adopted the undersigned's Report and Recommendation and dismissed Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint without prejudice for failure to establish a cause of action. (Doc. 16). On July 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a one-page document that is docketed as "Motion for Reconsideration/Objection re: 16 Order Adopting Report and Recommendation" (Doc. 17). Plaintiff states that he disagrees with the Court's Order (Doc. 16), explaining that he "had surgery 2010 have not been able to keep a full time job since, I have tried to look for jobs but unable to do so. I am starting to think that this is some kind of discrimination against me since I am an a American Citizen born in USA an [sic] not a immigrant from a different country . . . ." (Doc. 17).
Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. See Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). "Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). See also LRCiv 7.2(g)(1) ("The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence"). The undersigned finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof for reconsideration of the Court's Order (Doc. 16). Accordingly,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 17).
This Report and Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further review. Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).
Dated this 20th day of July, 2018.
/s/_________
Eileen S. Willett
United States Magistrate Judge