Addison v. Dept. of the Navy

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 30 response filed by Plaintiff construed as a second motion for reconsideration (c/m to Plaintiff 6/1/15 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 6/1/2015. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
VERNON ADDISON
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 13-0846

:
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, :
Office of Counsel
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On March 20, 2015, the court issued a memorandum opinion
and order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor
of Defendant and against Plaintiff on claims of race and gender
discrimination and retaliation under Title VII.

(ECF Nos. 26 &

27).

“request

On

April

6,

2015,

Plaintiff

filed

reconsideration and vacate judgment.”
construed

the

submission

as

a

a

(ECF No. 28).

motion

for

[for]

The court

reconsideration

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), and issued a memorandum opinion
and order on April 13, 2015 denying the motion.
On

May

12,

document

labeled

order.”

(ECF

2015,
as

No.

a

Plaintiff
“response

30).

To

submitted
to

the

(ECF No. 29).
a

memorandum
extent

that

hand-written
opinion

and

Plaintiff’s

submission is comprehensible and can be construed as a second
request for reconsideration or supplement to his request for
reconsideration, he has not established any grounds to warrant

reconsideration.

Plaintiff spends many pages again recounting

his dissatisfaction with his work environment, discussing the
alleged

attacks

disagreement

by

with

reconsideration

his

his

is

not

former

coworker

ultimate
a

Tu

Nguyen,

termination.

device

that

The

litigants

and

his

motion

for

may

use

to

reargue issues that have already been argued, such as the case
here.

See, e.g., Quhui Huang v. Culpepper, Civ. Action No. DKC

10-0089, 2011 WL 1327351, at *2 (D.Md. Apr. 4, 2011) (denying a
motion for reconsideration where “Plaintiff ha[d] submitted a
rambling, forty-seven page memorandum, along with approximately
two hundred pages of exhibits, in which she appears to seek to
relitigate the merits of the prior motion to dismiss.”).

There

must be an end to decision-making.
Accordingly, it is this 1st day of June, 2015, by the United
States

District

Court

for

the

District

of

Maryland,

ORDERED

that:
1.

The response filed by Plaintiff Vernon Addison (ECF

No. 30), construed as a second motion for reconsideration, BE,
and the same hereby IS, DENIED; and
2.

The

clerk

is

directed

to

transmit

copies

of

this

Memorandum Opinion and Order directly to pro se Plaintiff and
counsel for Defendant.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
2