Poling v. Marschik et al
Filing
130
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 120 Wexford Health Sources, Inc.'s Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 11/13/2015. (kns, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
STEVEN POLING,
Plaintiff,
v.
VONNIE MARSCHIK, ET AL.,
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Case No. RWT 12-cv-454
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On June 5, 2015, Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”) filed a Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment as to Count I, in which Plaintiff asserted a claim under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF Nos. 101, 30. The Court heard oral arguments on September 17, 2015,
following which it entered an order denying the motion. ECF No. 116. On October 6, 2015,
Wexford filed a Motion to Reconsider arguing that the Court incorrectly applied the law when it
denied Wexford’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and urging the Court to reconsider its
decision. ECF No. 120. In its Motion to Reconsider, Wexford maintains that Plaintiff failed to
establish a constitutional deprivation based on policy or custom and therefore summary judgment
as to Count I was warranted. ECF No. 120-1 at 3.
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for a motion for
reconsideration, the local rules of this Court permit the filing of a motion for reconsideration
within ten days of the issuance of the order that is the subject of the motion. L.R. 105.10. The
rule contains no standard for its application, nor has the Fourth Circuit identified such a standard.
Potter v. Potter, 199 F.R.D. 550, 552 (D. Md. 2001). The denial of partial summary judgment is
an interlocutory order subject to reconsideration under Rule 54(b). The Fourth Circuit has said
that, because a “decision not to grant summary judgment does not resolve any factual or legal
issue…[i]t is well accepted that no more justification need be offered to support a trial judge’s
reversal of his or another district judge’s negative ruling on a summary judgment motion than the
mere assertion that the judge changed his or her mind, or disagreed with the conclusion of his or
her predecessor.” Washington v. Digital Equip. Corp., No. 91-1217, 1992 WL 167946, at *6
(4th Cir. July 21, 1992) (citing Cale v. Johnson, 861 F.2d 943, 948 (4th Cir. 1988); Foster v.
Tandy Corp., 828 F.2d 1052, 1058 (4th Cir. 1987); Shouse v. Ljunggren, 792 F.2d 902, 904
(9th Cir. 1986)). In the widely cited case of Above the Belt, Inc. v. Bohannan Roofing, Inc.,
99 F.R.D. 99 (E.D. Va. 1983), the court noted that there are “circumstances when a motion to
reconsider may perform a valuable function,” concluding that such a motion “would be
appropriate where…the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside
the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning
but of apprehension,” or where there has been “a controlling or significant change in the law or
facts since the submission of the issue to the Court.” “Such problems rarely arise and the motion
to reconsider should be equally rare.” Above the Belt, Inc., 99 F.R.D. at 101.
When a motion for reconsideration “raises no new arguments, but merely requests the
district court to reconsider a legal issue or to ‘change its mind,’ relief is not authorized.”
Pritchard v. Wal-Mart Stores, 2001 WL 101473, *1 (4th Cir. Feb. 7, 2001) (citing United States
v. Williams, 674 F.2d 310, 312 (4th Cir. 1982)); see also Shields v. Shelter, 120 F.R.D. 123,
125-26 (D. Colo. 1988) (observing that a motion for reconsideration “is not a license for a losing
party’s attorney to get a second bite at the apple”). The underlying logic of these cases is to
require that parties ensure the motions they file are “complete with respect to facts, law and
2
advocacy.” Potter, 199 F.R.D. at 552-53. “Once a court has issued its ruling, unless one of the
specific grounds noted above can be shown, that should end the matter, at least until appeal.
Were it otherwise, then there would be no conclusion to motions practice, each motion becoming
nothing more than the latest installment in a potentially endless serial that would exhaust the
resources of the parties and the court.” Id.
Defendant has failed to make any of the showings necessary for the Court to reconsider
its previous ruling. Wexford’s Motion to Reconsider merely restates the same facts and reargues
its position put forth in the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment—that there was no “pervasive
past pattern of widespread, rampant and flagrant deprivations” of medical care and that Wexford
was not the final decision-making authority. ECF No. 120-1 at 13, 16-18. The Court already
considered these arguments when it reviewed the parties’ substantial filings and heard two hours
of oral argument at the motions hearing, and, being required to draw “all justifiable inferences”
in favor of the Plaintiff, rejected them. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
Wexford is simply entreating the Court to “rethink what the Court ha[s] already thought
through.” Above the Belt, Inc., 99 F.R.D. at 101.
Accordingly, it is this 13th day of November, 2015, by the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland,
ORDERED, that Defendant Wexford’s Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 120) is hereby
DENIED.
/s/
ROGER W. TITUS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?