Trotter v. Berryhill

Filing 28

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS- re 27 MOTION to Reopen Case. Please note that when filing Objections pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), briefing consists solely of the Objections (no longer than ten (10) pages) and the Response to the Objections (no longer than ten (10) pages). No further briefing shall be permitted with respect to objections without leave of the Court. Objections to R&R due by 6/12/2019. Signed by Judge Sherry R. Fallon on 5/29/2019. (lih)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
KIMBERLY D. TROTTER
Plaintiff,
V.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 18-233-CFC-SRF

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Kimberly D. Trotter ("Plaintiff'), filed this action on February 9, 2018. (D.I. 1)

She proceeds prose. On April 24, 2019, the court recommended dismissing the case without
prejudice for failure to prosecute. (D.I. 25) Plaintiff did not object to the Report and
Recommendation. The Report and Recommendation was adopted by Order and the case was
closed on May 16, 2019. (D.I. 26) Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the case on May 24, 2019.
(D.I. 27) The court treats this motion as a motion for reconsideration.

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The standard for obtaining relief under Rule 59(e) is difficult for Plaintiff to meet. The

purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to "correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present
newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d
669,677 (3d Cir. 1999). "A proper Rule 59(e) motion ... must rely on one of three grounds: (1)
an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to
correct clear error oflaw or prevent manifest injustice." Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669
(3d Cir. 2010) (citing N River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir.
1995)). A motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded on a request that a court rethink a

decision already made. See Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F. Supp. 1109,
1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993). 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." Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239, 1240 (D. Del. 1990).
Reargument, however, may be appropriate where "the Court has patently misunderstood a party,
or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has
made an error not ofreasoning but of apprehension." Brambles USA, 735 F. Supp. at 1241
(citations omitted); see also D. Del. LR 7.1.5.
In dismissing the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute, the court reviewed the
following factors: (1) the extent of the party's personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the
adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery; (3) a history
of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party was willful or in bad faith; (5) the
effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of other sanctions; and
(6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense. See Paulis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 747
F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984); see also Emerson v. Thiel Coll., 296 F.3d 184, 190 (3d Cir. 2002).
The court has again reviewed the record in light of the Paulis factors as well as the instant
motion. However, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any grounds to warrant reconsideration of
the May 16, 2019 Order. Therefore, the court recommends denying the motion for
reconsideration. (D.I. 27)

III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court recommends denying Plaintiffs motion for

reconsideration. (Civil Action No. 18-233-CFC-SRF, D.I. 27) The Clerk of Court shall cause a
copy of this Report and Recommendation to be mailed to Plaintiff.
This Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B), Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(l), and D. Del. LR 72.1. The parties may serve and file specific written objections
within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The objections and responses to the objections are limited to five (5)
pages each.
The parties are directed to the court's Standing Order In Pro Se Matters For Objections
Filed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, dated October 9, 2013, a copy of which is available on the
court's website, http://www.ded.uscourts.gov.

Dated: May

l 9. , 2019
MAGISTRATE JUDGE