Stewart v. Skorupa et al

Filing 49

ORDER denying 46 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 47 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ADB)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA ROBERT R. STEWART, 4:12CV3184 Plaintiff, vs. ORDER PATRICIA SUE HARTWELL, Defendant. This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, Filing No. 46, and amended motion to reconsider, Filing No. 47. Defendants Skorupa, Lewis and Johnson have filed an opposition to the motion, Filing No. 48. On December 12, 2013, this court entered a Memorandum and Order, Filing No. 44, granting defendants Skorupa, Lewis and Johnson’s motion for summary judgment. Filing No. 33. Plaintiff now asks this court to reconsider and reverse its order of December 12, 2013. The court has carefully reviewed the motion and finds it must be denied. Plaintiff alleges no new facts or law, but instead plaintiff reiterates earlier arguments already addressed by this court. See Arnold v. ADT Sec. Servs., 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.” Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988) (quotations and citations omitted)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is denied. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, Filing No. 46, and amended motion for reconsideration, Filing No. 47, are denied. Dated this 30th day of January, 2014. BY THE COURT: s/ Joseph F. Bataillon 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?