Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02218/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02218-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY LOUIS LAMON,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-02218-TLN-CKD

ORDER

Plaintiff Barry Louis Lamon (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this 

civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On February 21, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 

were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings 

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 35.) On April 27, 2020, 

Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 42.) 

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see 

also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed 

findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and 

Case 2:18-cv-02218-TLN-CKD Document 43 Filed 05/12/20 Page 1 of 3
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

decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th 

Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi 

Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court 

finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate 

judge’s analysis. 

To the extent Plaintiff’s objections may be construed as a Motion for Reconsideration of 

the magistrate judge’s Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended 

Complaint as “unnecessary,” Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. (ECF No. 42 at 6–8.) 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.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th 

Cir. 1999). Plaintiff has had multiple opportunities to amend and nothing in Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Reconsideration indicates any manifest errors of law or fact, newly discovered evidence, or 

highly unusual circumstances that would compel a different result. In sum, Plaintiff fails to 

establish he is entitled to this extraordinary remedy. Accordingly, the objection is overruled, and 

to the extent it may be construed as a Motion for Reconsideration, such motion is DENIED. 

To the extent Plaintiff’s third objection (ECF No. 42 at 17; see also ECF No. 36) may be 

construed as a Motion for Reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s 

motion to appoint counsel (see ECF Nos. 32–33), such motion is without merit and is DENIED. 

McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255. Moreover, upon review of the entire file, the Court finds that it 

does not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 72(a) (a magistrate judge’s order regarding non-dispositive pretrial motions shall be 

upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law”); L.R. 303(f). Accordingly, the objection is 

overruled, and to the extent it may be construed as a Motion for Reconsideration, such motion is 

DENIED. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 21, 2020 (ECF No. 35), are 

Case 2:18-cv-02218-TLN-CKD Document 43 Filed 05/12/20 Page 2 of 3
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

3

adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF 

No. 31) is DENIED; 

3. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure for failure to follow the Court’s orders; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 11, 2020

Case 2:18-cv-02218-TLN-CKD Document 43 Filed 05/12/20 Page 3 of 3