RESPRESS v. NAVICENT HEALTH INC et al
ORDER denying 31 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE C ASHLEY ROYAL on 5/12/2017 (lap)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
NO. 5:15‐CV‐314 (CAR)
NAVICENT HEALTH, INC.,
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Floretta Respress’s Motion for Reconsideration of
this Court’s Order [Doc. 29] granting Defendant Navicent Health, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss
for Failure to State a Claim. In that Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Title VII claims
because Plaintiff failed to provide enough factual matter, taken as true, to suggest
retaliation or intentional discrimination. Plaintiff now requests this Court to reconsider its
Order and allow the case to continue through further Court proceedings. As explained
below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 31] is DENIED.
On January 31, 2017, this Court granted Navicent’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim. Despite providing Plaintiff with two opportunities and giving clear
instructions, Plaintiff still did not identify her protected class or statutorily protected
activity to suggest a claim for retaliation or intentional discrimination under Title VII.
Thus, the Court found Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and
dismissed Plaintiff’s amended complaint with prejudice.
On February 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed the following letter with the Court:
In your ruling, you stated that I am not in a protected class. I feel that I am in
a protected class of people who are frequently being discriminated against at
this organization. Please refer to Causey v Navicent Health Inc (5:15 cv‐00230)
and Gordon v Navicent Health Inc (5:16‐cv‐00315). Both cases clearly show that
discrimination is a habit for this organization.
I would like to plead to the court to continue my case, since there is evidence
this organization has discriminated against others in the past. Hence, I am a
protected class. Please accept this letter as a request to carry this case through
further court proceedings.1
Because the letter was filed over twenty‐eight days after the entry of judgment, the Court
will analyze this as a Motion for Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60,
rather than Rule 59.2
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“Rule 60(b) provides that upon motion, a court may relieve a party of a final
judgment for, among other things, mistake in the judgement and newly discovered
evidence.”3 Additionally, “[u]nder Rule 60(b)(6), a court may grant relief for any other
reason justifying relief from the operation of judgment. Relief under this clause is an
extraordinary remedy which may be invoked only upon a showing of exceptional
2 See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e); Fed. R. Civ.P. 60(c). Nonetheless, the Court notes Plaintiff’s Motion would
also be denied under Rule 59(e), as she did not provide any new evidence or identify any new law
or legal error that would warrant reconsideration.
3 Enwonwu v. Trans Union, LLC, 164 Fed. Appʹx 914, 919 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)).
circumstances.”4 However, Local Rule 7.6 cautions that “[m]otions for reconsideration
shall not be filed as a matter of routine practice.”5 Ultimately, “[w]hether to grant a
motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the district court.”6
The Court finds no basis under Rule 60(b) to reconsider its prior decision. Plaintiff
again does not identify her protected class or statutorily protected activity, nor does she
explain how Navicent’s alleged past discrimination shows she is in a protected class of
individuals. Plaintiff’s contentions do not fall within any of the specific circumstances set
out in Rule 60(b)(1)‐(5), and Plaintiff has not made a showing that exceptional
circumstances warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6).7 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration [Doc. 31] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 12th day of May, 2017.
S/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Crapp v. City of Miami Beach, 242 F.3d 1017, 1020 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks
omitted) (quoting Griffin v. Swin‐Tech Corp., 722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984)).
5 M.D. Ga., L.R. 7.6.
6 Hankerson v. Drew, No. 1:13–cv–1790–WSD, 2014 WL 2808218, at *3 (N.D. Ga. June 20, 2014) (citing
Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 805‐806 (11th Cir. 1993)).
7 See Enwonwu, 164 Fed. Appʹx at 919 (affirming denial of a motion for reconsideration where the
movant did not show that the relief was warranted by the specific circumstances named in Rule
60(b)(1)‐(5) or any other extraordinary circumstances per Rule 60(b)(6)).
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?