Sewell v. Strayer University
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 40 motion to set aside judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) (c/m to Plaintiff 4/18/14 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 4/18/14. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
STARSHA MONET SEWELL
Civil Action No. DKC 12-2927
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
employment discrimination case is the motion for relief from the
December 27, 2013 dismissal order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)
filed by pro se Plaintiff Starsha Monet Sewell.
On October 2,
University, asserting claims of race-, color-, and gender-based
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), as
Defendant subsequently moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint
and Plaintiff moved for recusal (ECF No. 23).
issued a memorandum opinion and order on July 9, 2013.
Nos. 25 & 26).
The July 9, 2013 memorandum opinion and order
denied Plaintiff’s motion for recusal and dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction Ms. Sewell’s Title VII claims of
Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to the extent she
alleged Title VII retaliation relating to her alleged demotion
in March 2008.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
Defendant moved to dismiss.
Ms. Sewell’s amended complaint was
dismissed with prejudice on December 27, 2013.
(ECF Nos. 38 &
Plaintiff filed the instant motion on April 8, 2014.
Fed.R.Civ. 60(b) states that, “[o]n motion and just terms,
the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a
final judgment, order, or proceeding” on any of the following
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a
new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has
earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying
it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason
extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.”
Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir.
Plaintiff’s motion does not meet any of the grounds for
reconsideration set forth in Rule 60(b).
discrimination claims against Strayer University.
argues that the undersigned erred when she denied Plaintiff’s
motion for recusal.
Plaintiff believes that her motion for
previously remanded another case that Ms. Sewell litigated to
Plaintiff appears to be referring to Sewell v.
Prince George’s Cnty. Dep’t of Social Servs., No. 12-cv-2302-DKC
(D.Md. remanded Aug. 15, 2012).
The undersigned remanded this
case to state court, citing the domestic relations exception to
federal court jurisdiction and the fact that removal is not
available to a party plaintiff.
The Fourth Circuit dismissed
Ms. Sewell’s notice of appeal on February 1, 2013.
Prince George’s Cnty. Dep’t of Social Servs., 508 F.App’x 259,
259 (4th Cir. 2013) (unpublished).
Plaintiff merely renews her
See Messner v. Calderone, 447 F.App’x 725, 725
contentions decided adversely to a litigant.”).
Similarly, Plaintiff again argues that she is entitled to
relief pursuant to equitable tolling because she “satisfied the
300-day filing requirement for her Title VII complaint in March
(ECF No. 40, at 1).
Plaintiff’s argument is premised on a
misunderstanding of the memorandum opinion.
As the undersigned
explained in the July 9, 2013 memorandum opinion, and reiterated
Plaintiff’s complaint did not clearly reveal that the March 2008
“financial demotion” claim was time-barred.
Accordingly, it was
found plausible that Ms. Sewell filed a timely administrative
complaint with respect to the March 2008 “financial demotion.”
Thus, Plaintiff’s request equitably to toll the 300-day filing
requirement pertaining to the March 2008 EEOC charge was found
See Sewell v. Strayer University, Civil Action No. DKC
Plaintiff has not established any ground for relief under Rule
Based on the foregoing, it is this 18th day of April, 2014,
Maryland, ORDERED that:
60(b) (ECF No. 40) filed by Plaintiff Starsha Monet Sewell
and the same hereby IS, DENIED; and
University and directly to Plaintiff Starsha Monet Sewell.
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District 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?