(PS) McDonald v. Department of Motor Vehicles ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Mitchel McDonald, No. 2:21-cv-01561-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 Vv. 14 California Department of Motor Vehicles in 15 Sacramento County, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Plaintiff Mitchel McDonald moves to “set aside or vacate” this court’s order adopting the 20 | Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. A post-judgment motion for reconsideration 21 | is construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 | 59(e) if it is filed within twenty-eight days of the judgment, as McDonald’s motion was. See Am. 23 | Jronworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). 24 | “Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 25 | circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 26 | clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners 27 | v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). McDonald’s motion does not identify any newly 1 | discovered evidence, clear error, or intervening change in the law, and the circumstances are not 2 | “highly unusual.” The motion to set aside or vacate (ECF No. 14) is denied. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 DATED: October 17, 2022. [ (] 5 l ti / f q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45