(PC) Petillo v. Baughman ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SIDNEY PETILLO, No. 2:19-cv-00667-TLN-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BAUGHMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On January 5, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 18 served on the parties and contained notice that any objections to findings and recommendations 19 were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 82.) On February 17, 2022, this Court adopted 20 the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 86.) Concurrently, the Court: (1) granted 21 Defendants Mallot, J. Jones, A. Herrera, Castello, and Villasenor’s (collectively, “Defendants”) 22 Motion for Summary Judgement; and (2) dismissed Defendant Castello for failure to effect timely 23 service of process. (Id.) Judgement was entered and the case was thus closed. (ECF Nos. 86, 24 87.) Shortly after, Sidney Petillo (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 88.) 25 “Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly 26 unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 27 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. 28 Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). 1 Plaintiff alleges several statutory violations but does not provide any new evidence, point 2 | toclear error, or allege a change of controlling law. (ECF No. 88.) The Court has carefully 3 | reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff's requests. U/d.) The Court finds the magistrate 4 || judge’s order as well as this Court’s prior order are supported by the record and by proper 5 | analysis. Simply put, the Rule 59(e) standard is not met here. For the foregoing reasons, 6 | Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (/d.) is hereby DENIED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 | DATED: July 8, 2022 ° /) Ail Toke Troy L. Nuhley> United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28