Garcia DeNunez v. Astrue et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 34 Plaintiff's Amended Motion To Reconsider. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 6/10/13.(mnfsl, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01478-REB
CELIA GARCIA DENUNEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,1 Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is Plaintiff’s Amended Motion To Reconsider [#34],2
filed June 8, 2013. Exercising my prerogative to rule on the motion without benefit of a
response, D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C., I deny the motion without awaiting a response.
The bases for granting reconsideration are extremely limited:
Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an
intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence
previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear
error or prevent manifest injustice. Thus, a motion for
reconsideration is appropriate where the court has
misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the
controlling law.

1

Carolyn W. Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on February 14, 2013,
and thus her name is substituted for that of Michael J. Astrue as the defendant in this suit. FED. R. CIV. P.
25(d)(1). By virtue of the last sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), no further action need to taken to continue
this lawsuit.
2

“[#34]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations
omitted). Plaintiff’s motion offers nothing suggesting that any of these factors are
implicated in this case. Instead, she merely rehashes the same arguments this court
rejected in its initial determination. However, plaintiff’s apparent disagreement with that
ruling provides no proper basis for reconsideration by this court. The appropriate
avenue to remedy any alleged error in that decision now lies in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Motion To
Reconsider [#34], filed June 8, 2013, is DENIED.
Dated June 10, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2