Wynn

Filing 52

DECISION AND ORDER Appellant's motion for reconsideration 50 is denied. The appellant's other pending motions, seeking the appointment of counsel 46 and objecting to various conduct and rulings in the underlying Bankruptcy 38 39 and 44 - all of which are entirely unrelated to the decision appealed-from and thus entirely irrelevant to the instant appeal are denied as moot. This appeal has been dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice 31 and all motions have now been resolv ed. The Clerk is directed to close the case. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 4/19/2018. Copy of this Decision and Order sent by First Class Mail to James I. Wynn, Sr. to his address of record. (KAH) -CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________________

IN RE JAMES I. WYNN, SR.,

Debtor.

DECISION AND ORDER

17-CV-6547L

________________________________________________

On February 15, 2018, the Court issued a Decision and Order dismissing the appellant
debtor’s appeal, on the grounds that the appellant had failed to prosecute the appeal despite
multiple warnings from the Court. The Court further determined that in any event, the decision
appealed-from was a sound exercise of the Bankruptcy Court’s discretion. (Dkt. #31).
The appellant has since filed a number of motions. The first seeks reconsideration of the
Court’s February 15, 2018 Decision and Order (Dkt. #50). In addition, the appellant has filed
several motions for miscellaneous relief, including two motions seeking sanctions and
recalculation of certain property taxes, based on an alleged criminal “tax scam” by which Monroe
County and other parties have conspired to defraud the appellant in matters related to his
Bankruptcy action (Dkt. ##38, #44), a motion for sanctions accusing various participants in the
underlying Bankruptcy action of conspiring against the appellant due to his race (Dkt. #39), and a
motion seeking appointment of counsel (Dkt. #46).
Motions for reconsideration are “generally not favored and [are] properly granted only
upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.” Marrero Pichardo v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 46, 55
(2d Cir. 2004). Accordingly, “reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party
can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked . . . that might reasonably be
expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255,

257 (2d Cir. 1995). Furthermore, “a motion for reconsideration may not be used . . . as a vehicle
for relitigating issues already decided by the Court.” Davidson v. Scully, 172 F. Supp. 2d 458,
461 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). The determination of whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration
lies squarely within the discretion of the district court. Campos v. Zuntag, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
48086 at *3 (E.D.N.Y. 2016).
Appellant’s motion for reconsideration does not substantively attack the Court’s February
15, 2018 Decision and Order, nor does it identify any erroneous application of fact or law. Rather,
the motion for reconsideration reargues the merits of the underlying Bankruptcy proceeding, and
seeks the Court’s recusal based on speculative allegations of bias. The motion for reconsideration
(Dkt. #50) is accordingly denied.
The appellant’s other pending motions, seeking the appointment of counsel (Dkt. #46) and
objecting to various conduct and rulings in the underlying Bankruptcy (Dkt. #38, #39, and #44) –
all of which are entirely unrelated to the decision appealed-from and thus entirely irrelevant to the
instant appeal – are denied as moot.
This appeal has been dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice (Dkt. #31) and all motions
have now been resolved. The Clerk is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________________________
DAVID G. LARIMER
United States District Judge
Dated: Rochester, New York
April 19, 2018.

2