Muragara v. Moneygram Payment System International
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION denying 52 Motion for Reconsideration by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 01/13/2016.(mdave, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00939-MEH
JECKONIAS N. MURAGARA,
MONEYGRAM PAYMENT SYSTEM INTERNATIONAL,
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Review (“Motion”) [filed January 11, 2016; docket
#52], seeking reconsideration of the Court’s decision granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [see
docket #50] and subsequent final judgment [see docket #51]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the
Court has construed his pleadings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than
those drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the Motion.1
Initially, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s Motion contains no certificate of conferral pursuant
to D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(a), which in itself is enough to deny the motion. See McCoy v. West, 965
F. Supp. 34, 35 (D. Colo. 1997). Furthermore, the Motion merely disagrees with the Court’s prior
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and the Pilot Program to Implement the Direct
Assignment of Civil Cases to Full Time Magistrate Judges, the parties consented to the
jurisdiction of this Court to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. Docket #35.
Order dismissing his case. 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. It is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance
arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.
Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff offers nothing to suggest that any of these factors are implicated in this case.
The Court determines that Plaintiffs’ Motion raises no basis to alter or amend the original
Order. As stated in the Order, under the standards set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
(2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), Plaintiff has failed to state a viable
claim for retaliation under Title VII. As specified in the Order, a “claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 556). Plaintiff’s restatement of his conclusory arguments in the current Motion does nothing to
change the outcome that he failed state a viable retaliation claim as discussed in the Order. See
docket #50 (citing Zokari v. Gates, 561 F.3d 1076, 1081 (10th Cir. 2009) for the elements of
Therefore, based on the foregoing and the entire record herein, this Court orders that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Review [filed January 11, 2016; docket #52] is denied.
Entered and dated at Denver, Colorado, this 13th day of January, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
Michael E. Hegarty
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?