(PS) McDonald v. Department of Motor Vehicles

Opinion

Mitchel McDonald, No. 2:21-cv-01561-KJM-DB Plaintiff, ORDER Vv. California Department of Motor Vehicles in Sacramento County, Defendant. Plaintiff Mitchel McDonald moves to “set aside or vacate” this court’s order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. A post-judgment motion for reconsideration is construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) if it is filed within twenty-eight days of the judgment, as McDonald’s motion was. See Am. Jronworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). “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). McDonald’s motion does not identify any newly

discovered evidence, clear error, or intervening change in the law, and the circumstances are not “highly unusual.” The motion to set aside or vacate (ECF No. 14) is denied. DATED: October 17, 2022. [ (] l ti / f q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE