Barrett v. USA - Social Security et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying 32 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 32 Motion for Hearing; denying 32 Motion for Equal Protection. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 4/24/2013. Copy sent to the plaintiff via US Mail. (Edwards, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No.: 5:10-CV-469-BO

WILLIAM LESLIE BARRETT, SR.,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)

V.

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration, oral
argument, and equal protection [DE 32]. For the reasons stated herein, the plaintiffs motion is
DENIED.
This matter was dismissed on February 20, 2013 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) because the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief might be
granted. Final judgment in this matter was entered the same day. The plaintiff now requests that
the Court reconsider its order dismissing the plaintiffs complaint.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a court to provide relief from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding under six enumerated circumstances. The plaintiff has failed to
articulate any circumstance presently existing that would entitle him to relief under the rule. In
his motion the plaintiff attempted to indict the court's previous order by drawing a distinction
between the Social Security Administration's denial ofhis claim and the granting of his claim on
improper grounds. The Court finds this to be a distinction without a difference that does not
entitle the plaintiff to relief under Rule 60(b). Further, to the extent the plaintiffs motion

requests relief beyond the relief offered by Rule 60(b) this matter has been dismissed and, absent
an underlying controversy, this Court no longer has jurisdiction to consider those matters.
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
This the3:1'day of April, 2013.

2