Fulton v. Coleman et al

Filing 30

ORDER denying 29 Second Motion for Reconsideration and 26 Motion for Sanctions. Fulton is WARNED, however, that if he makes any more baseless filings in this court, this court will impose sanctions. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 9/19/2014. (Tripp, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DIVISION
No. 4:14-CV-7-D

STEVENW. FULTON,
Plaintiff,

v.
ISAAC HANNAH COLEMAN,
NEW ENGLAND MOTOR FREIGHT,
ABC CORP., and JOHN DOES 1-3,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

On August 5, 2014, defendants filed a motion for sanctions [D .E. 26]. On August 13, 2014,
Steven W. Fulton filed a motion for reconsideration [D.E. 29].
The motion for reconsideration [D.E. 29] is baseless and is DENIED.

See,~'

Zinkard v.

Brown, 478 F.3d 634, 637 (4th Cir. 2007); Bogart v. Chapell, 396 F.3d 548, 555 (4th Cir. 2005).
The court understands defendants' frustration with Fulton and the motion for sanctions.
Nonetheless, having fully considered the entire record, the motion [D.E. 26] is DENIED. Fulton
is WARNED, however, that if he makes any more baseless filings in this court, this court will
impose sanctions.
SO ORDERED. This _1j day of September 2014.

:::::1: .. . . Jj -" V.o.A

J
SC.DEVERill
Chief United States District Judge