Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01666/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01666-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAS HEZEKIAH TAFARI,

Plaintiff,

v.

YVETTE RUCKER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-01666-DAD-JDP (PS)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S RULE 60 MOTION

(Doc. Nos. 17, 21)

Plaintiff Ras Hezekiah Tafari, proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action on September 

22, 2022. (Doc. No. 1.) This action was dismissed on April 3, 2024 due to plaintiff’s failure to 

state a cognizable claim for relief. (Doc. No. 10.) On October 17, 2024, plaintiff filed a Rule 60 

motion for relief from judgment. (Doc. No. 17.) This matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. (Doc. No. 18.)

On November 20, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment be 

denied. (Doc. No. 21.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff presents no newly 

discovered evidence, no intervening change in controlling law, and does not demonstrate that the 

court committed clear error. (Id. at 2.) As a result, the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff 

had failed to demonstrate any basis for reconsideration of the court’s April 3, 2024 order 

dismissing the case. (Id.) The pending findings and recommendations were served upon plaintiff 

Case 2:22-cv-01666-DAD-JDP Document 23 Filed 01/17/25 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of the 

date of service. (Id.) On December 4, 2024, plaintiff timely filed objections to the pending 

findings and recommendations.

In his objections, plaintiff primarily repeats the arguments made in his motion for relief 

from judgment, which the magistrate judge already appropriately and thoroughly addressed in the 

pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 22.) To the extent that plaintiff cites legal 

precedent in his objections, the authorities cited do not reflect an intervening change in the 

controlling law because the cited cases were all decided prior to the order dismissing this case on 

April 3, 2024. (Id. at 1–2) (citing Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447, 468–71 (2023)). In short, 

plaintiff’s objections provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and 

recommendations. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 20, 2024 (Doc. No. 21) 

are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment (Doc. No. 17) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2025 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-01666-DAD-JDP Document 23 Filed 01/17/25 Page 2 of 2