Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00112/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00112-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE SPITTAL,

2:05-CV-0112-MCE-DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JERRY HOUSEMAN, ET AL.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On or about January 31, 2006, Plaintiff George Spittal

submitted a document to the Court that it will construe as a

Request for Reconsideration from this Court’s Order dated January

26, 2006. That Order adopted, in full, the Magistrate Judge’s 1

Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed November 16, 2005. 

Plaintiff’s action was accordingly dismissed, with prejudice, for

failure to state a claim.

///

Case 2:05-cv-00112-MCE -DAD Document 36 Filed 05/19/06 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

Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(k), an application for

reconsideration must set forth, by affidavit or brief, any new

material facts and circumstances that support a claim that the

Court’s previous ruling be revisited. Here Plaintiff has failed

to offer any such new evidence bearing on the Court’s prior

ruling; rather, he simply wants the Court to revisit its previous

Order. The instant request is consequently deficient on that

ground alone. In addition, however, Plaintiff’s request offers

nothing substantively in any event to change the analysis set

forth in the Magistrate Judge’s November 16, 2005 Findings and

Recommendations, which the Court previously adopted by its Order

of January 26, 2006.

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 18, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00112-MCE -DAD Document 36 Filed 05/19/06 Page 2 of 2