(PS) McDonald v. Department of Motor Vehicles

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 Mitchel McDonald, No. 2:21-cv-01561-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 Vv.

14 California Department of Motor Vehicles in 15 Sacramento County, 16 Defendant.

19 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).

24 | “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.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 DATED: October 17, 2022. [ (] 5 l ti / f q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE