Kinross

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 KEIRON M. ELIAS, No. 2:17-cv-2106 WBS DB 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER 15 J. KINROSS, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 ----oo0oo---- 19 The court previously granted in part defendants’ motion 20 for summary judgment. (Docket No. 73.) Plaintiff has filed a 21 document entitled “Objections to Courts [sic] Granting of Summary 22 Judgment” (Docket No. 74), which the court will construe as a 23 motion to reconsider under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 24 Plaintiff presents no new facts or circumstances which would 25 warrant reconsideration, but instead repeats arguments already 26 raised on summary judgment. See Jackson v. Walker, 2:06-cv-2023 27 WBS GGH, 2009 WL 3584946 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2009) (an 28 unsuccessful party may not use a motion to reconsider “to rehash nnn □□□ nn nnn EE IRI OE ES ESE IEE II ND

1 arguments previously presented” or to present …