Patel v. Reddy et al

Filing 411

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)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS KAMAL K. PATEL, and K&A MOTEL, INC., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 10-2403-JTM DAVID SNAPP, et al., Defendants. 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. 24th 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 2

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?