From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maciel v. Prebula

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 13, 2006
No. 2:02-cv-2675-MCE-PAN-P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2006)

Opinion

No. 2:02-cv-2675-MCE-PAN-P.

February 13, 2006


ORDER


On November 4, 2005, the Court adopted Findings and Recommendations issued August 25, 2005, and dismissed claims against all then — remaining Defendants (Manuel, Riddle, Andreasen, Allen, Sullivan, Zaro and Stratton). However, the Clerk did not enter judgment.

On November 28, 2005, Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Reconsideration" of the Court's November 4, 2005, Order and Objections to the August 25, 2005, Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate any new or different facts or circumstances requiring a different analysis or outcome. See E.D. Local Rule 78-230(k). Accordingly, the March 30, 2005, Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. The Clerk shall enter judgment.


Summaries of

Maciel v. Prebula

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 13, 2006
No. 2:02-cv-2675-MCE-PAN-P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2006)
Case details for

Maciel v. Prebula

Case Details

Full title:JAMES D. MACIEL, Plaintiff, v. TOM PREBULA, ET AL., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 13, 2006

Citations

No. 2:02-cv-2675-MCE-PAN-P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2006)