Moore v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 66

ORDER denying 63 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. See full written order. Entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 7/26/2017. (RT, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 26 July, 2017 02:17:13 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
KEIRAND R. MOORE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:15-CV-01058-JEH

STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
Order
Now before the Court is the the pro se Plaintiff, Kierand Moore’s, Motion for
Reconsideration (D. 63) 1 and the Defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company’s (“State Farm”), response thereto (D. 64). For the reasons
stated, infra, the Court DENIES Moore’s motion. 2
In ruling on State Farm’s most recent Motion for Summary Judgment (D.
57), the Court initially found, inter alia, that State Farm was not entitled to partial
summary judgment on Moore’s retaliation claim. Id. at pg. 5-6. In the Defendant’s
subsequent Motion to Reconsider, State Farm highlighted that the Court’s ruling
did not account for a change in the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56,
which was redrafted in 2010 specifically to allow courts to make partial rulings on
claims for summary judgment. (D. 58 at pg. 3). The Court acknowledged the
change in the law and therefore granted State Farm summary judgment on
Moore’s assault and battery-related retaliation claim. (D. 61).

1
2

Citations to the Docket in this case are abbreviated as “D. __.”

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S. Magistrate Judge. (D. 38-39).

1

Now, Moore asks the Court to reconsider its ruling, again.

(D. 63).

Specifically, he wants evidence from the alleged assault and battery to “be
recognized as applicable to the charges of ‘harassment’, ‘retaliation’ and
‘discrimination’.” Id. at pg. 6. In the same breath, however, Moore limits his use
of the evidence to his “harassment and retaliation charges[]” and further states
“[t]here would be no reference made by me during the trial to the assault and
battery charges that have been dismissed.” Id. at pg. 1.
“’Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest
errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.’” Caisse Nationale
de Credit v. CBI Industries, 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). In
his motion, Moore has failed to highlight any manifest errors of law or fact. Nor
has he brought any newly discovered evidence to the Court’s attention.
Therefore, the Court DENIES Moore’s motion.
For the reasons stated, supra, Moore’s Motion for Reconsideration (D. 63) is
DENIED.
It is so ordered.
Entered on July 26, 2017
s/Jonathan E. Hawley
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2