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
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?