Jones et al v. Chapman et al

Filing 143

ORDER denying 131 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 4/12/2017. (krs, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND CHAMBERS OF STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 101 WEST LOMBARD STREET BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201 (410) 962-7780 Fax (410) 962-1812 April 12, 2017 LETTER TO COUNSEL RE: Tawanda Jones, et al. v. Officer Nicholas David Chapman, et al.; Civil Case No. ELH-14-2627 Dear Counsel: I have reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s March 7, 2017 Order (“Motion”) and Defendants’ Opposition thereto. [ECF Nos. 131, 142]. Plaintiffs’ Motion essentially reiterates arguments that I considered, and rejected, in my March 7, 2017 opinion. See [ECF No. 130]. No new arguments have been raised. It is unclear from Plaintiffs’ Motion whether it is intended to be a Motion for Reconsideration addressed to me, or an appeal of my discovery ruling to the District Judge. To the extent that it is intended to be the former, the Motion [ECF No. 131] is DENIED for the reasons stated in my March 7, 2017 opinion. To the extent it is intended to be the latter, Plaintiff should re-file the motion as an appeal, referencing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and the legal standard set forth therein. I recognize that the reply period on Plaintiff’s Motion has not yet lapsed, but I wish to provide the parties with sufficient time to pursue further recourse, if so desired. Despite the informal nature of this letter, it will be flagged as an Opinion and docketed as an Order. Sincerely yours, /s/ Stephanie A. Gallagher United States Magistrate 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?