Opinion
No. 2:02-cv-2203-MCE-KJM-P.
April 20, 2007
ORDER
On September 7, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion asking that this court reconsider its August 21, 2006 order adopting the magistrate judge's February 24, 2006 findings and recommendations.
A district court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). "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." Id. at 1263.
Plaintiff does not present newly discovered evidence. Furthermore, the court finds that, after a de novo review of this case, the August 21, 2006 order adopting the February 24, 2005 findings and recommendations is neither manifestly unjust nor clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's September 7, 2006 motion for reconsideration is denied.