Strope v. Rice et al

Filing 57

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 55 Motion for Reconsideration Signed by District Judge Sam A. Crow on 9/5/2012.Mailed to pro se party Michael Lee Strope by regular mail (daw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

MICHAEL LEE STROPE
also known as
GORDON STROPE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 08-3300-SAC

ELIZABETH RICE, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration (Doc. 55). Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the
court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and
denying plaintiff’s motion for recusal.
The grounds for granting a motion to reconsider “include (1) an
intervening

change

in

the

controlling

law,

(2)

new

evidence

previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or
prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d
1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). A motion to reconsider “should be denied
unless it clearly demonstrates manifest error of law or fact or
presents newly discovered evidence.” National Business Brokers, Ltd.
v. Jim Williamson Products, Inc., 115 F.Supp.2d 1250, 1256 (D. Colo.
2000)(internal citations and punctuation omitted).
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration broadly alleges bias and
challenges the court’s decision to grant summary judgment. The court
has examined plaintiff’s motion carefully and has reviewed the

Memorandum and Order denying his motion for recusal and granting
defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court finds no manifest
error of law or fact nor any other legal basis for granting
plaintiff’s request for relief from that order.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration (Doc. 55) is denied.
Copies of this order shall be transmitted to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 5th day of September, 2012, at Topeka, Kansas.

S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge

2