(PC) Warfield v. Tibbet

Opinion

OSI IOI III OEE III OO OE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Broderick James Warfield, No. 2:23-cv-01546-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. | walt Tibet, et al., 1 Defendants. 16 17 This court previously adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations and 18 | dismissed plaintiff's complaint without leave to amend and entered judgment. See generally 19 | Findings & Recommendations, ECF No. 15; Order (June 5, 2024), ECF No. 51. Plaintiff moves 20 | for reconsideration of that order, seeks the appomtment of a special master, moves to supplement 21 | the record, and requests permission to use more pages than ordinarily permitted by the local rules. 22 | See generally Mot. Recons., ECF No. 54; Mot. Appoint Special Master, ECF No. 56; Mot. 23 | Suppl., ECF No. 57; Mot. Expand Page Limits, ECF No. 58. 24 Plaintiff contends in his motion for reconsideration that this court clearly erred by failing 25 | to consider the brief filed at ECF No. 50. The court denied his request to file that brief as moot. 26 | See Order (June 5, 2024) at 3. For that reason, the court denies plaintiff's pending motion for 27 | reconsideration. The court also denies plaintiff's other motions and requests, as none shows there 28 | is any reason to revisit the matters addressed in this court’s previous order and the Magistrate

1 | Judge’s findings and recommendations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Zimmerman v. City of 2 | Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing and applying legal standard for Rule 3 | 59(e) motions). 4 The motions at ECF Nos. 54, 56, 57 and 58 are denied. Any similar future requests and 5 | motions will be disregarded. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 DATED: July 3, 2024. (] 8 em A ¢ f q_/ CHIEF ONT D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE