In Re: Bishop

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM ORDER Denying 24 "Request to Re-Consider." Appellant has until September 18, 2015, to submit his brief on the merits. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of the appeal. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 9/9/2015. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
INRE:
BISHOP

Bankruptcy Case No. 12-50912 (BLS)
Debtor.

ROMIE DAVID BISHOP,
Appellant,
Civil Action No. 15-284-RGA

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.,
Appellees.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellant filed a motion entitled, "Request to Re-Consider D.I. No. 23." (DJ. 24).
To grant Appellant's motion, I must find, in my discretion, that Appellant demonstrated
one of the following: a change in the controlling law, a need to correct a clear error oflaw or fact
or to prevent manifest injustice, or availability of new evidence not available when the judgment
or order was granted. Motions for reargument or reconsideration may not be used as a means to
argue new facts or issues that inexcusably were not presented to the court in the matter
previously decided. Apeldyn Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp., 2011WL6357773, *1 (D. Del. Dec.
19, 2011).
Appellant does not raise any new arguments. He merely repeats his earlier arguments.
His arguments are not any better now than they were before. When he makes a new variation on

an old argument, the new variation is not persuasive. For example, he states that "[t]he October
1, 2015 Transcript was quickly Ordered by a unknown party (name is normally listed) directly
after the hearing and appeared on the Docket 11-12338-BLS. Sometime after a court employee
removed the request for transcript without notice .... " (D.I. 24, p. 2,

'ti 3).

I checked the docket

for 11-12338, and D.I. 463 reflects ahearing on October 1, 2014 (which is the date I believe
Appellant meant), D.I. 462 reflects a request for the transcript, and D.I. 477 is the transcript.
Appellant does not meet the standard for reconsideration, and therefore his request for
reconsideration (D.I. 24) is DENIED.
Appellant's final sentence might be interpreted as a request for recusal, but he provides
no affidavit and no factual assertions that could possibly form the basis for recusal under 28
U.S.C. §§ 144 & 455. Thus, to the extent Appellant has requested recusal, it is DENIED.
Finally, Appellant states that he "now only wished to preserve the entire record for his
appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and will not be filing any Brief in this Court, for
cause." (D.I. 24, p.2, 'ti 4). As Appellant is aware, his brief was due August 31, 2015. (D.I. 19).
He has indicated his firm intention not to file a brief. That would constitute a failure to
prosecute, and would be grounds for dismissal of this appeal. Appellant is pro se. Therefore, I
will give him one more chance. APPELLANT HAS UNTIL SEPTEMBER 18, 2015, TO

SUBMIT HIS BRIEF ON THE MERITS. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN
DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL.
IT IS SO ORDERED this

_!!J._ day of September 2015.

United States Dis