Patel v. Reddy et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 408 Patel's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 1/24/2014. Mailed to pro se party Kamal K. Patel by regular mail. (mss)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
KAMAL K. PATEL,
and K&A MOTEL, INC.,
Case No. 10-2403-JTM
DAVID SNAPP, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The court has before it pro se plaintiff Kamal K. Patel’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Dkt. 408). On December 30, 2013, the court granted summary
judgment to the defendants on Patel’s claim. See Dkt. 403. In his motion, Patel asks the
court to clarify whether it intended its order to dismiss the case with or without
prejudice. Patel argues that when a court dismisses a case because the plaintiff lacks
standing, the dismissal is without prejudice, citing Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434
F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006).
Patel’s argument does not apply here. The court did not enter an order
dismissing the case for lack of standing. Rather, the court granted summary judgment
on the claim to the defendants. An order granting summary judgment terminates the
claim with prejudice. See Wheeler v. Hurdman, 825 F.2d 257, 259 n.5 (10th Cir. 1987) (“A
grant of summary judgment resolves the issue on the merits and this is with
prejudice.”). The court’s order resolved Patel’s claim with prejudice. Accordingly, the
court denies Patel’s motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED this __ day of January, 2014, that Patel’s Motion
for Reconsideration (Dkt. 408) is denied.
s/ J. Thomas Marten
J. THOMAS MARTEN, JUDGE
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?