Chang v. Vanderwielen ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 VICKI CHANG, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C22-0013-SKV 10 v. ORDER RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 11 ANDREW VANDERWIELEN, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 Plaintiff proceeds pro se in this civil rights action. This matter comes before the Court in 15 relation to Plaintiff’s “Declaration/Motion to Partially Reconsider Order on Report and 16 Recommendation.” Dkt. 96. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order 17 adopting the Report and Recommendation Granting Defendant Dr. Riddhi Kothari’s Motion for 18 Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. Dkt. 80 (addressing Dkts. 14, 19 37, 65 & 67). The Court, having considered the motion, along with the remainder of the record, 20 herein finds and ORDERS as follows: 21 (1) Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be granted only upon a 22 “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could not 23 have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Civil Rule 1 (LCR) 7(h)(1). A motion for reconsideration must be filed “within fourteen days after the order 2 to which it relates[.]” LCR 7(h)(2). 3 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is untimely and could be denied on this basis alone. 4 Id. See also United States v. Washington, 20 F. Supp. 3d 986, 1055 n.1 (W.D. Wash. 2013). 5 Moreover, even if timely filed, Plaintiff fails to show either manifest error or new facts or legal 6 authority entitling her to relief. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 96, is 7 DENIED. 8 (2) The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to the parties. 9 Dated this 22nd day of June, 2022. 10 A 11 S. KATE VAUGHAN United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23