Gilliam v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
OPINION and ORDER denying plaintiff's 78 Motion for Reason why Certain Parts of the Plaintiff's Evidence Ignored. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 4/18/2019. (CMG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
EDWARD LEE GILLIAM,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's Motion for
Reason why Certain Parts of the Plaintiff’s Evidence Ignored (Doc.
#78) filed on April 1, 2019, which the Court construes as a motion
For the reasons set forth below, the motion
extraordinary remedy and, thus, is a power which should be used
Am. Ass'n of People With Disabilities v. Hood, 278
F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1339 (M.D. Fla. 2003)(citation omitted).
reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2)
the availability of new evidence; (3) the need to correct clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.”
Sussman v. Salem, Saxon &
Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994).
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Opinion and
Order (Doc. #75) because he believes the Court committed clear
opposition and plaintiff’s Documentation of Case Events.
#78, p. 1.)
Plaintiff argues that if the Court had considered
these documents, the Court would have found “irrefutable” evidence
of “a severe [w]rongful [t]ermination” and thus would have denied
defendant’s motion to dismiss.
The Court finds no merit in this
Plaintiff’s response simply contains bare legal conclusions
and recounts the elements of each cause of action asserted in the
Third Amended Complaint.
Thus, the response failed to demonstrate
how the Third Amended Complaint set forth any viable causes of
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (To avoid
dismissal, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
(citation and quotation omitted)); Mamani v. Berzain, 654 F.3d
1148, 1153 (11th Cir. 2011) (“Legal conclusions without adequate
factual support are entitled to no assumption of truth.” (citations
As to plaintiff’s Documentation of Case Events, this document
is comprised of plaintiff’s commentary and his interpretation of
the timeline of events leading up to this lawsuit.
- 2 -
response, the Documentation of Case Events failed to set forth
sufficient factual allegations “to raise [plaintiff’s] right to
relief above the speculative level.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
Plaintiff also asserts that the Court “robotically ignores”
the “egregious fact” that defendant asserted a sovereign immunity
defense to avoid liability for its “high crimes and misdemeanors
committed against Plaintiff.”
(Doc. #78, p. 2.)
set forth no basis for reconsideration of the Court’s finding as
to sovereign immunity – aside from his belief that its application
is “unreasonable and ridiculous.”
The Court therefore need
not again address the merits of defendant’s sovereign immunity
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that plaintiff has
failed to identify a “need to correct clear error or prevent
Sussman, 153 F.R.D. at 694.
motion is therefore denied.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Plaintiff’s Evidence Ignored (Doc. #78) is DENIED.
- 3 -
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of April, 2019.
Parties and Counsel of Record
- 4 -
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?