Mitchell v. Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers, LLP et al
ORDER re: 90 Plaintiff's NOTICE to File for Writ of Mandamus for Failure of Magistrate Judge Boland to Recuse Himself. The Motion is an inappropriate reargument of issues already decided. None of the factors justifying reconsideration is present. The Motion does nothing to alter my reasoning in denying the earlier motion to recuse. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the 88 Order dated 06/16/2009 the Motion is DENIED, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 06/22/09. (wjc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland Civil Action No. 07-cv-01479-BNB-MJW DR. PAUL A. MITCHELL, M.D., Plaintiff, v. ROCKY MOUNTAIN CANCER CENTERS, LLP, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________ This matter arises on Plaintiff's Notice to File for Writ of Mandamus for Failure of Magistrate Judge Boland to Recuse Himself [Doc. # 90, filed 6/17/2009] (the "Motion"). I previously denied a motion by the plaintiff seeking my recusal. See Order [Doc. # 88, filed June 16, 2009]. Although the purpose of the present Motion is not entirely clear and because Dr. Mitchell is proceeding pro se, out of an abundance of caution I have liberally construed the Motion as a request to reconsider the Order denying disqualification. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly authorize a motion for reconsideration. An order, "however designated, which adjudicates fewer that all claims or rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties . . . is subject to revision at any time before entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all parties." Raytheon Constructors, Inc. v. Asarco, Inc., 368 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2003)(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)).
Motions for reconsideration serve specific purposes and are not a mechanism merely to reargue, potentially interminably, matters previously presented and decided. To the contrary: The court has the opportunity upon a motion for reconsideration to correct manifest errors of law or fact and to review newly discovered evidence. Appropriate circumstances for a motion to reconsider are where the court has obviously misapprehended a party's position, the facts or the law, or mistakenly has decided issues outside of those the parties presented for determination. It is inappropriate for the movant to advance new arguments or supporting facts which were otherwise available for presentation when the original . . . motion was briefed. Pizza Management, Inc. v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 1989 WL 89937 *1 (D. Kan. July 19, 1989)(internal quotations and citations omitted). The Motion is an inappropriate reargument of issues already decided. None of the factors justifying reconsideration is present. The Motion does nothing to alter my reasoning in denying the earlier motion to recuse. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Order dated June 16, 2009 [Doc. # 88]: IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. Dated June 22, 2009. BY THE COURT: s/ Boyd N. Boland United States Magistrate Judge
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?