(PC) Steward v. Mohmond ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONNY STEWARD, No. 2:20-cv-01892-TLN-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ASEIL H. MOHMOUD, et. al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Donny Steward’s (“Plaintiff”) “Motion in 18 Support of Notice of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” (ECF 19 No. 24.) On April 15, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 recommending dismissal of this action with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief 21 can be granted and for seeking monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief. 22 (ECF No. 10.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 23 notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty- 24 one days. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff filed objections on May 24, 2021. 1 (ECF No. 16.) On June 25 1 Plaintiff objects to a statement in the June 9, 2021 Order, (ECF No. 17), finding that Plaintiff did not submit an objection to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 26 (ECF No. 24 at 3). Out of an abundance of caution, and in accordance with the provisions of 28 27 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case and has reviewed the objections Plaintiff submitted and finds that they do not include any 28 information or new evidence that will change the outcome of this case. 1 | 9, 2021, this Court adopted the findings and recommendations and entered judgment closing the 2 | case. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.) 3 On July 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion in Support of Notice of 4 | Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” which this court construes as a 5 | motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). CECF No. 24.) Plaintiff seeks 6 | “injunctive relief... against [the] district judge and magistrate judge . . . for dismissing [his] 7 | claim,” and further requests the Court vacate the judgment and remand the case for further 8 | proceedings. (ECF No. 24 at 45.) 9 Pursuant to “Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly 10 | unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 11 || committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. 12 | Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff included several exhibits with his 13 | motion, all involving the same facts that were the basis for the originally denied claim. (See ECF 14 || No. 24 at 7-70.) Plaintiff’s attached exhibits and the instant motion fail to provide any 15 | information or new evidence that will change the outcome of this case. 16 The Court has carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 17 | 24.) The Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 18 || proper analysis. Simply put, the Rule 59(e) standard is not met here. 19 For the aforementioned reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's Motion in Support 20 | of Notice of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 24) with 21 | prejudice. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 | DATED: September 28, 2021 25 /) 26 “ i / looky 27 Troy L. Nunley ] 28 United States District Judge