Opinion
2:19-CV-0845-DMC
06-14-2022
DON EPIGMENIO RAMIREZ., Plaintiff, v. DAVID BERNHARDT, Defendant.
ORDER
DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion, ECF No. 36, for reconsideration of the Court's April 19, 2022, order vacating the hearing on Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
On March 16, 2022, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which was noticed for hearing before the undersigned in Redding, California, on April 27, 2022. See ECF No. 26. As of April 19, 2022, Plaintiff had failed to file a timely opposition and the hearing was vacated pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 230(c). See ECF No. 29 (April 19, 2022, order vacating hearing). In his current motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that he did not receive Defendant's motion in time to file an opposition prior to the April 19, 2022, order vacating the hearing. See ECF No. 36.
Plaintiff's motion is denied. First, a review of the docket reflects that Plaintiff was able to file various opposition briefs following the April 19, 2022, order. Second, the Court concludes that a hearing would not have been beneficial in any event. Third, as explained in the Court's separate order addressing Defendant's motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff has not been prejudiced as a result of the April 19, 2022, order vacating the hearing and the Court has considered his opposition briefs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.