UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 6, 2009
BARRY LAMON, PLAINTIFF,
JOHN TILTON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING WITH PREJUDICE OBJECTION CONSTRUED AS FURTHER MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Docs. 47, 53)
Plaintiff Barry Lamon ("plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 18, 2008, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint, along with a motion for a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief.*fn1 (Docs. 41, 42.) On December 23, 2008, the undersigned issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff's motion be denied. (Doc. 44.) On January 20, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting re-argument of his motion, along with a further motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunctive relief. (Docs. 45-47, 49 -51.) Plaintiff also filed an objection to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 48.)
On February 19, 2009, the undersigned issued an order denying Plaintiff's motion for re-argument construed as a motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 52.) On March 12, 2009, the District Judge issued an order adopting the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 56.) Plaintiff then filed an appeal of the District Judge's order, and on June 1, 2009, the Ninth Circuit summarily affirmed the Court's order denying preliminary injunctive relief. (Docs. 63, 64.)
Still pending on the Court's docket is Plaintiff's objection, filed March 4, 2009, to the undersigned's order denying Plaintiff's motion for re-argument. (Doc. 53.) Plaintiff's objection, which the Court construes as a further motion for reconsideration, is moot in light of the decision of the Ninth Circuit and therefore the motion is denied. Further, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's objection/motion for reconsideration and finds that Plaintiff has set forth no grounds justifying reconsideration. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60 (governing motions for reconsideration of final orders and judgments); Local Rule 78-230(k) (governing motions for reconsideration of orders resolving motions).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's objection, construed as a further motion for reconsideration, is denied, with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.