Opinion
2:21-cv-00991-TSZ-JRC
06-24-2022
TERRANCE JOE QUINLAN, Plaintiff, v. JOHN CONATY, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
J. RICHARD CREATURA, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on referral from the district court and on plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. See Dkt. 42.
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be granted only upon a “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the Court's] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Civil Rule (“LCR”) 7(h)(1). A motion for reconsideration must be filed “within fourteen days after the order to which it relates[.]” LCR 7(h)(2).
Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its report and recommendation from March 1, 2022, which recommended that the District Court dismiss plaintiff's claims under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. See id. at 1. Well over fourteen days have passed since the Court issued its report and recommendation and the District Court already adopted the Court's report and recommendation. See Dkts. 27, 28. Therefore, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is untimely and could be denied on this basis alone. See United States v. Washington, 20 F.Supp.3d 986, 1055 n.1 (W.D. Wash. 2013). However, even if plaintiff had timely filed his motion, he fails to show either manifest error or new facts or legal authority entitling him to relief. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied.