(PS) Tafari v. Rucker

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 RAS HEZEKIAH TAFARI, No. 2:22-cv-01666-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 14 YVETTE RUCKER, et al., PLAINTIFF’S RULE 60 MOTION 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 17, 21) 16 17 Plaintiff Ras Hezekiah Tafari, proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action on September 18 22, 2022. (Doc. No. 1.) This action was dismissed on April 3, 2024 due to plaintiff’s failure to 19 state a cognizable claim for relief. (Doc. No. 10.) On October 17, 2024, plaintiff filed a Rule 60 20 motion for relief from judgment. (Doc. No. 17.) This matter was referred to a United States 21 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. (Doc. No. 18.) 22 On November 20, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 23 recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment be 24 denied. (Doc. No. 21.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff presents no newly 25 discovered evidence, no intervening change in controlling law, and does not demonstrate that the 26 court committed clear error. (Id. at 2.) As a result, the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff 27 had failed to demonstrate any basis for reconsideration of the court’s April 3, 2024 order 28 dismissing the case. (Id.) The pending findings and recommendations were served upon plaintiff 1 | and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of the 2 | date of service. Ud.) On December 4, 2024, plaintiff timely filed objections to the pending 3 | findings and recommendations. 4 In his objections, plaintiff primarily repeats the arguments made in his motion for relief 5 | from judgment, which the magistrate judge already appropriately and thoroughly addressed in the 6 | pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 22.) To the extent that plaintiff cites legal 7 | precedent in his objections, the authorities cited do not reflect an intervening change in the 8 | controlling law because the cited cases were all decided prior to the order dismissing this case on 9 | April 3, 2024. Ud. at 1-2) (citing Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447, 468-71 (2023)). In short, 10 | plaintiff's objections provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and 11 || recommendations. 12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 13 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 14 | pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 15 Accordingly, 16 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 20, 2024 (Doc. No. 21) 17 are adopted in full; and 18 2. Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment (Doc. No. 17) is denied. * | ated: _ January 17, 2025 □□□ A. 2, □□ 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28