(PC) Petillo v. Baughman

Opinion

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

Troy L. Nuhley> United States District Judge