From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stephen v. Zhang

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 6, 2012
No. 2:09-cv-01516 MCE CKD P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2012)

Opinion

No. 2:09-cv-01516 MCE CKD P

12-06-2012

JIMMIE STEPHEN, Petitioner, v. F. ZHANG, et al., Respondent.


ORDER

On September 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion asking that the Court reconsider its March 1, 2012, order adopting the magistrate judge's December 1, 2011, findings and recommendations thereby dismissing this action.

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 suggesting this matter should not be dismissed. Furthermore, the court finds that, after a de novo review of this case, the March 1, 2012, order adopting the December 1, 2011, findings and recommendations is neither manifestly unjust nor clearly erroneous.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's September 19, 2012, motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 160) is denied.

____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Stephen v. Zhang

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 6, 2012
No. 2:09-cv-01516 MCE CKD P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2012)
Case details for

Stephen v. Zhang

Case Details

Full title:JIMMIE STEPHEN, Petitioner, v. F. ZHANG, et al., Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 6, 2012

Citations

No. 2:09-cv-01516 MCE CKD P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2012)