Parker v. CGI Technologies and Solutions Inc.
ORDER granting 27 Motion to Set Aside Judgment with the Court construing this as a motion to reconsider. Parker shall have until 7/9/12 to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment. CGI shall file any reply by 7/16/12. CGI to serve Parker with Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 6/20/2012. (order mailed to plaintiff) (cmj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CGI TECHNOLOGIES AND
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-0288-KD-N
This action is before the Court on the “Motion for Summary Judgment to be Set Aside or
Appeal” which this Court construes as a motion to reconsider1 filed by plaintiff Alma Parker
(doc. 27), the response in opposition filed by defendant CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc.
(doc. 28), and Parker’s reply (doc. 31). Upon consideration, and for the reasons set forth herein,
the motion to reconsider is GRANTED. Accordingly, Parker shall have until Monday, July 9,
2012, to respond to CGI’s motion for summary judgment. CGI shall file any reply on or before
July 16, 2012.
Accordingly, CGI is directed to serve Parker with a copy of the motion for summary
judgment and all attachments thereto as soon as possible in order for Parker to timely prepare
and file her response.
Parker captioned her motion “Motion for Summary Judgment to be Set Aside or Appeal” (doc.
27). However, the Court may liberally construe a pro se motion in the interest of justice. See
FED. R. CIV. P. 8(e) (APleadings must be construed so as to do justice.@); Boxer X v. Harris, 437
F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir.2006) (APro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than
pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.@) (quotations omitted),
cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1323, 127 S.Ct. 1908 (2007); Shabazz v. Summers, 2010 WL 3829431, 1
(M.D.Ala., Sept. 23, 2010) (construing a “Motion to Extend Time to Appeal,” as a motion to
In general, a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure “cannot be brought solely to relitigate issues already raised in an earlier motion.”
Harris v. Corrections Corp. of America, 2011 WL 2672553, 1 (11th Cir. July 11, 2011) (slip
copy) (citing Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005).).
“The only grounds for granting [a Rule 59] motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest
errors of law or fact.” Harris, 2011 WL 2672553, *1 (citing Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343
(11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (quoting Kellogg v. Schreiber ( In re Kellogg), 197 F.3d 1116,
1119 (11th Cir.1999)).
Upon review of Parker’s motion, reply to CGI’s response, and Parker’s statement that “L.
Dalaine” is not an adult who lives in her home, the Court finds that Parker shall be given an
opportunity to respond to the motion for summary judgment on or before July 9, 2012.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Parker at her address:
Alma Parker, 4915 U.S. Highway 80 East, Lot 61-A, Selma, Alabama 36701, by U. S. Mail, first
DONE this the 20th day of June, 2012.
s/Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The docket does not indicate that mail sent to Parker’s address has been returned by the
U.S. Post Office.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?