Yelverton v. Edmundson et al

Filing 51

ORDER denying 40 Motion for Reconsideration and withdrawing 37 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 6/30/2016. Copy sent to Stephen Thomas Yelverton, 3033 Wilson Blvd. #E-117, Arlington, VA 22201 via US Mail on 6/30/2016. (Grady, B.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
STEPHEN THOMAS YELVERTON,
Plaintiff,
V.

PHYLLIS Y. EDMUNDSON and
YELVERTON FARMS, LTD.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 5:15-CV-00134-F

___________________________ )
STEPHEN THOMAS YELVERTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

YELVERTON FARMS, LTD.
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 5:16-CV-00031-F

____________________________ )
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Stephen Thomas Yelverton's motion [DE-40]
seeking the court's r~consideration of its October 27, 2015 order [DE-35] denying Plaintiffleave
to amend his complaint in case number 5:15-CV-00134-F, finding that the motion to amend was
in bad faith. 1
Generally, motions for reconsideration are allowed only at the discretion of the court and
only under certain circumstances. See Ga.-Pac. Consumer Prods. v. Von Drehle Corp., 815 F.
Supp. 2d 927, 929 (E.D.N.C. 2011). Those circumstances are typically (1) to correct manifest
errors of law or fact or (2) to consider newly discovered evidence. See id Motions to reconsider
"are improper if they serve merely to ask the Court 'to rethink what the Court had already

1

The instant motion is intended to replace a previously filed motion [DE-37] for reconsideration. '

thought through-rightly or wrongly."' See id. (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan

Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)).
Having reviewed the case and

~onsidered

the parties' arguments, the court concludes that

there was no manifest error oflaw or fact in its October 27, 2015 order, nor does Plaintiff present
newly discovered evidence to justify reconsideration of that decision. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
motion [DE-40] for reconsideration in case number 5:15-CV-00134-F is DENIED and Plaintiff's
previously filed motion [DE-37] in case number 5:15-CV-00134-F is deemed WITHDRAWN.
SO ORDERED.
This, the 30th day of June, 2016.

MESC.FOX
Senior United States District Judge

2