(PC) Thomas v. Fry

Opinion

Otis Michael Thomas, No. 2:19-cv-1041 KJM CKD P Plaintiff, ORDER v. J.C. Fry, et al., 1S Defendants. The court construes the response at ECF No. 34 as a request to reconsider the order adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. See City of Los Angeles v. Santa Monica BayKeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2001); Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of Colusa Indian Cmty. v. California, 649 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Reconsideration is appropriate if there has been an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence has become available, or it is necessary to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Cachil Dehe Band, 649 F. Supp. 2d at 1069. The court has reviewed Mr. Thomas’s filing and concludes that he has not identified any relevant change in the law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. Reconsideration is denied. DATED: April 20, 2021. | / □ CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE