Ward v. Lincoln County Jail et al

Filing 102

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: It is ordered that the Pla's 49 MOTION for Reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 2/23/2010.(SCD)cc: COR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON DAVID ALLEN WARD, Plaintiff, v. LINCOLN COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendant. ) ) ) Civil Action No. 07-CV-389-JMH ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ) )

** ** ** ** ** This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff David Allen Ward's Motion for Reconsideration [Record No. 42]. Defendant Dr.

James Miller has filed a response and the time for a reply has lapsed. The motion is now ripe for decision and the Court, being

fully advised, will deny Ward's motion. I. BACKGROUND The factual and procedural background of this case was

described in detail in the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order [Record No. 39] and Miller's Response [Record No. 55] and does not warrant repetition here. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) provides "that in the absence of a direction to enter judgment on one of several claims presented in an action, `any order . . . which adjudicates fewer than all the claims . . . shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims . . . and the order . . . is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claim.'" Huss v. King

Co., 338 F.3d 647, 651 n.4 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)). Prior to the entry of a final judgment, this Court has the

inherent power to reconsider any portion of its previously entered interlocutory orders. Marconi Wireless Tel. Co. of Am. v. United

States, 320 U.S. 1, 47-48 (1943); Rodriguez v. Tennessee Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89 F. App'x 949, 959 (6th Cir. 2004). "Traditionally, courts will find justification for

reconsidering interlocutory orders when there is (1) an intervening change of controlling law; (2) new evidence available; or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Rodriguez, 89 F. App'x at 959 (citing Reich v. Hall Holding Co., 990 F. Supp. 955, 965 (N.D. Ohio 1998). III. DISCUSSION The Court granted Dr. Miller's motion to dismiss [Record No. 28] in its Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 30, 2009 [Record No. 39]. In that Memorandum Opinion and Order, the undersigned

found that the one year statute of limitations in KRS 413.140(1)(a) applied to Ward's claims against Dr. Miller and, thus, barred the claims. Additionally, the Court found against that Dr. Ward's Miller medical lacked

"deliberate substance.

indifference"

claims

Ward has not argued or demonstrated that there has been a change in controlling law, newly discovered evidence that was previously unavailable even with due diligence, or a need to 2

correct a clear error or to prevent a manifest injustice which would warrant reconsideration of the motion to dismiss. Id.

Ward's motion for reconsideration focuses solely on the alleged problems and indignities he suffered at the Lincoln County Jail and does not set forth any additional evidence to support his claims against Dr. Miller. Ward essentially attempts to re-argue his case in his motion for reconsideration, citing the medical problems he encountered while incarcerated at the Lincoln County Jail. The undersigned

read and considered this evidence when the undersigned ruled on the motion to dismiss and Ward's responses to that motion. Ward has

not offered any justification, such as a change in controlling law or to prevent a manifest injustice, for reconsideration of that same evidence now. IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for

reconsideration [Record No. 49] be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. This the 23rd day of February, 2010.

3