Rademaker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVID RADEMAKER, Case No.: 17-cv-02406-JLB-KSC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

v. MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

D. PARAMO, et al.,

Defendants. [ECF No. 71] 16 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 71.) Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 72.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s three motions for extension of time to file a reply (ECF Nos. 77; 78; 80), but to date, Plaintiff has not filed a reply and his final February 17, 2020 reply deadline has expired (ECF No. 81). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. I. LEGAL STANDARD A. Motion for Reconsideration Under Rule 59(e) or 60(b) The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions for 27 …