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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNARD LEE DAVIS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0821 LKK KJM P

vs.

M. KNOWLES, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 1, 2009, the undersigned recommended that the remaining

defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and the case dismissed. See Docket No.

137. Plaintiff filed no objection to the recommendation. The district judge adopted the findings

and recommendations, granted the motion for summary judgment and entered judgment against

plaintiff on September 1, 2009. See Docket Nos. 139 and 140. Plaintiff then filed two motions

to alter or amend the judgment, alleging he had never received a copy of the magistrate judge’s

findings and recommendations. See Docket Nos. 141 and 142. Plaintiff did not at that time

assert any substantive objections to the court’s decision to dismiss his case, but the court ordered

that plaintiff be re-served with the findings and recommendations and gave plaintiff leave to

supplement his motions with any objections he would have filed. See Docket No. 147. Pursuant

Case 2:04-cv-00821-LKK -KJM Document 151 Filed 08/16/10 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

 The two motions to amend judgment were filed on consecutive days and are, if not 1

identical, so substantially similar that they are duplicative. Therefore, the one supplement

plaintiff has filed applies with equal weight to both motions now before the court. 

2

to that order and a subsequent extension of time, plaintiff has now supplemented his motions to

alter or amend judgment. See Docket No. 150. 1

Having reviewed the supplement to plaintiff’s motions, the court finds no basis on

which to recommend altering or amending the court’s grant of the remaining defendants’ motion

for summary judgment or its entry of judgment against plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s supplement also contains a request for the appointment of a guardian ad

litem. See Docket No. 150 at 9. The court has already denied one such motion in this case. See

Docket No. 147. For the same reasons asserted then, and because there is no new information in

the record supporting reconsideration, the court will deny the request again.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for appointment of a guardian

ad litem (Docket No. 150) is denied. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the motions to alter or amend judgment

(Docket Nos. 141 and 142) be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twentyone days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: August 14, 2010. 

4 davi0821.alt.judg

Case 2:04-cv-00821-LKK -KJM Document 151 Filed 08/16/10 Page 2 of 2