Glover v. Missouri Child Support Enforcement Agency et al

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Charles Glover's "Motion to Appeal all Orders" is DENIED. (Doc. No. 39 .) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 8/25/2015. (NEB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CHARLES RYAN GLOVER,
Plaintiff,
v.
MISSOURI CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:15CV00022 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Charles Glover’s “Motion to
Appeal all Orders.” In this motion, Plaintiff expresses his dissatisfaction with the Court’s
Orders of July 28, 2015, and August 5, 2015, dismissing, respectively, the claims against
Judge Kimberly Dahlen based on judicial immunity, and David Brown based on
prosecutorial immunity. Construing Plaintiff’s motion as one to certify the Court’s
Orders for interlocutory appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the motion shall be
denied, as the requirements for such an appeal have not been met. See, e.g., Lutzeier v.
Citigroup Inc., No. 4:14-CV-00183-RLW, 2015 WL 1821255, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 21,
2015).
To the extent that Plaintiff’s motion is one for this Court’s reconsideration of the
above-noted Orders, Plaintiff has not made a showing entitling him to such relief.
“Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or
fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839

F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). “A motion for reconsideration is not a
vehicle for simple reargument on the merits.” R.G. Brinkmann Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co.,
No. 4:11CV1125 JAR, 2013 WL 328662, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 29, 2013) (citation
omitted). Plaintiff’s motion sets forth no manifest error of law or fact, nor does it present
any newly discovered evidence. Rather, the motion reiterates Plaintiff’s arguments raised
in his previous filings, and Plaintiff’s theories on the societal ramifications of the Court’s
Orders.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Charles Glover’s “Motion to Appeal
all Orders” is DENIED. (Doc. No. 39.)

________________________________
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 25th day of August, 2015.

-2-