KUMINKA v. ATLANTIC COUNTY, NEW JERSEY et al

Filing 90

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying 87 Motion for Reconsideration. ORDER that the Clerk shall re-close the file. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 4/21/2015. (tf, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHRISTINE KUMINKA,

:

Civil Action No. 10-5233(NLH)

:
Plaintiff,

:
:

v.

:

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

:
ATLANTIC COUNTY,

:

NEW JERSEY, ET. AL.,

:
:

Defendants.

:

CHRISTINE KUMINKA
P.O. BOX 1425
TALLEVAST, FL 34270
Appearing pro se
JAMES T. DUGAN
ATLANTIC COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF LAW
1333 ATLANTIC AVENUE
8TH FLOOR
ATLANTIC CITY, NJ 08401
On behalf of defendants
HILLMAN, District Judge
Presently pending before the Court is the motion of
plaintiff, Christine Kuminka, appearing pro se, for
reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of her case; and

Previously, the Court having dismissed her case due to her
flagrant disregard of the Court’s Orders, including refusing to
attend a Court-ordered independent medical examination; and
Plaintiff having appealed the dismissal of her case to the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed this Court’s
determination that plaintiff’s mental condition was “in
controversy” for purposes of Rule 35(a), and that the Court did
not abuse its discretion by ordering her to attend an IME; but
The Third Circuit having remanded the matter because the
Court did not expressly consider the factors set forth in Poulis
v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984);
and
The Court, after considering supplemental briefing and
argument at a hearing, having issued both an oral and written
Opinion analyzing the six Poulis factors and determining that
the dismissal of her case was warranted (see September 30, 2014
Opinion); and
Plaintiff now asking the Court to reconsider the dismissal
of her case; and
Plaintiff arguing that the dismissal of her case is unfair
to her and her meritorious claims, and that her statement at the
May 13, 2014 hearing that she would finally submit to the IME
was inappropriately rebuffed by the Court; and
2

The Court noting that a motion for reconsideration may be
treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e), or as a motion for relief from judgment or order
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), or it may be filed pursuant to
Local Civil Rule 7.1(i).

The purpose of a motion for

reconsideration “is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or
to present newly discovered evidence,” Max's Seafood Cafe ex
rel. Lou–Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.
1999).

A judgment may be altered or amended only if the party

seeking reconsideration shows: (1) an intervening change in the
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was
not available when the court granted the motion for summary
judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or
fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Id.; and
The Court finding that plaintiff has failed to meet the
standard for reconsideration of the Court’s decision to dismiss
her case;
Accordingly,
IT IS on this 21st day of

April , 2015

ORDERED that the Clerk shall reopen the case and shall make
a new and separate docket entry reading “CIVIL CASE REOPENED”;
and it is further

3

ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [87] is
DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall re-close the file and make a
new and separate docket entry reading “CIVIL CASE TERMINATED.”

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

At Camden, New Jersey

4