ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO DISTRICT JUDGE'S ORDER ON MAGISTRATE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

(ECF No. 101)

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.

I. Background

Plaintiff Anthony Craig Huckabee ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner, currently proceeding pro se, in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's second amended complaint filed on August 21, 2012.

On August 21, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Diaz, Wu, Bhatt and Nguyen be granted in part and denied in part. (ECF No. 75.) On October 17, 2013, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 94.) The undersigned considered Plaintiff's objections and partially adopted the Findings and Recommendations on December 10, 2013. (ECF No. 96.)

On December 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the order partially adopting the findings and recommendations regarding Defendants' motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 101.) On January 23, 2014, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 117.) The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

II. Discussion

"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." Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted). "A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision, and recapitulation ..." of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision. United States. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal.1986), affirmed in part and reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). Additionally, pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, when filing a motion for reconsideration, a party must show what "new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion." Local Rule 230(j).

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of two primary issues. First, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's determination that Defendant Wu was described as the Chief Medical Officer overseeing referrals and prescription renewals. Plaintiff maintains that the Court's order essentially eliminated the liability of the two unidentified defendants described as the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Pharmacist. Plaintiff presents no basis for the Court to reverse its prior decision. Plaintiff apparently overlooks the Court's finding that "[t]o the extent Defendant Wu is not considered to be both the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Pharmacist, the motion to dismiss did not concern any claims against these unidentified individuals." (ECF No. 96, p. 2.) In other words, neither the motion to dismiss nor the Court's order affected the purported liability of these unnamed individuals.

Second, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's determination regarding the applicability of the continuing violations doctrine. Plaintiff appears to elaborate on his previous arguments regarding the continuing violations doctrine, which were presented in his objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations. However, Plaintiff has not presented any new facts or law that were unavailable to him at the time he filed his objections. Plaintiff's mere disagreement with the Court's order is not a sufficient basis for reconsideration. Westlands, 134 F.Supp.2d at 1131. Plaintiff's references to medical grievances that he filed or the fact that the California prison medical care system is in receivership do not alter the Court's determination.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's order on the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.