(PC) Thomas v. Fry ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Otis Michael Thomas, No. 2:19-cv-1041 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. J.C. Fry, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 The court construes the response at ECF No. 34 as a request to reconsider the order 18 | adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. See City of Los Angeles v. Santa 19 | Monica BayKeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2001); Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of 20 | Colusa Indian Cmty. v. California, 649 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2009). 21 | Reconsideration is appropriate if there has been an intervening change in controlling law, new 22 | evidence has become available, or it is necessary to correct clear error or prevent manifest 23 | injustice. Cachil Dehe Band, 649 F. Supp. 2d at 1069. The court has reviewed Mr. Thomas’s 24 | filing and concludes that he has not identified any relevant change in the law, new evidence, clear 25 | error, or manifest injustice. Reconsideration is denied. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 DATED: April 20, 2021. | / □ 28 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE