Felton et al v. Albemarle Regional Health Services et al

Filing 56

ORDER denying 55 Motion for Relief. Signed by District Judge James C. Dever III on 6/7/2021. Sent to Arthur Felton at 931 Halls Creek Road Elizabeth City, NC 27909 via US Mail. (Sellers, N.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTHERN DMSION
No. 2:20-CV-14-D

ANGELA FELTON
andARTIIlJRFELTON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALBEMARLE REGIONAL
HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

On May 6, 2020, this court dismissed Angela Felton and Arthur Felton's ("Feltons" or
''plaintiffs") claims and closed the case. See [D.E. 34]. On July 27, 2020, the Feltons moved to
correct clerical errors. See [D.E. 45]. The same day, the Feltons moved to compel Rule 26(a)
disclosures. See [D.E. 46]. On August 31, 2020, United States Magistrate Judge Robert T.
Numbers, II denied as futile the Feltons's motion to amend their complaint. See [D.E. 49]. On
October 5, November 10, and November 30, 2020, the Feltons moved to provide additional
information to the court. See [D.E. 51, 52, 53]. On December 29, 2020, this court denied the
Feltons's motion to amend, and denied the Feltons's remaining motions as baseless [D.E. 54]. The
Feltons did not appeal. On April 21, 2021, the Feltons filed a motion for relief [D.E. 55].
To the extent the Feltons seek reconsideration under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 59, the
motion is untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); cf. Zinkand v. Bro:w!l, 478 F.3d 634, 637 (4th Cir.
2007); Bogart v. Chapell, 396 F.3d 548, 555 (4th Cir. 2005); Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co.,
148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998); Hughes v. Bedsole, 48 F.3d 1376, 1382 (4th Cir. 1995).

To the extent the Feltons seek relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the court
denies the motion as baseless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Aikens v. Ingram. 652 F.3d 496, 500---01

& n.3 (4th Cir. 2011) (en bane); Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403,412 n.12 (4th Cir.
2010); Nat'l Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. Gray. 1 F.3d 262, 264 (4th Cir. 1993); cf. Luxama v.
McHugh. 675 F. App'x 272,273 (4th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (unpublished).
The court DENIES plaintiffs' motion for relief [D.E. 55] as baseless. The case remains
closed.
SO ORDERED. This ....1_ day of June 2021.

~sf im'VE~ m

United States District Judge

2