Diggs v. Arnott et al

Filing 43

ORDER entered by Judge Ortrie Smith denying 42 motion for reconsideration. (Order to be mailed to Plaintiff.) (Kanies, Renea) ***Modified on 2/15/2013 to reflect that a copy of the Order was mailed to Plaintiff, Robert O'Diggs, 119 S Cedar Apt. 3, Billing, MO 65610. (Wheeler, LaTandra).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT O. DIGGS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JIM ARNOTT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-3286-CV-S-ODS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Pending is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. # 42). Plaintiff requests
that this Court reconsider its Order dated January 2, 2013, denying Plaintiff’s Third
Motion for Extension of Time to file a response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment. The Motion is denied.
On July 6, 2012, Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. #
21). On July 25, 2012, Plaintiff filed his First Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. # 27),
after which the Court granted Defendant an additional 90 days to respond to
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

(Doc. # 28).

On October, 19, 2012,

Plaintiff filed his Second Motion for Extension of Time, requesting an additional 60 days
to file a response to Defendant’s Motion. (Doc. # 29). The Court granted Plaintiff’s
Motion but stated that because Plaintiff had been granted two lengthy extensions,
additional extensions would not be granted barring extraordinary circumstances. (Doc.
# 32). Plaintiff was directed to file his Suggestions in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment on or before December 22, 2012. On December 21, 2012,
Plaintiff filed his Third Motion for Extension of Time to file a response to Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment.

(Doc. # 34).

The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion

because of the absence of extraordinary circumstances. (Doc. # 35).
In his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that he has been “extremely
diligent” in litigating this case, but because of his incarceration he has been unable to
comply with the Court’s time requirements. Plaintiff has failed to show reconsideration

is warranted, and his motion is denied. Arnold v. ADT Sec. Services, Inc., 627 F.3d
716, 721 (8th Cir. 2010) (“Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith
ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DATE: February 15, 2013

2