Thrash v. N.C. DHHS - Medicaid Assistance et al

Filing 38

ORDER denying 16 Motion for Reconsideration - The Clerk is DIRECTED to refer the following motions to the magistrate judge for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1): defendant's motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings (DE # 18), plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (DE # 24), and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (DE # 25). Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 07/19/2011. (Baker, C.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NO.7:1O-CV-243-FL

MICHAEL E. THRASH,
Plaintiff,
v.
DARE COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on motion by Dare County Airport Authority
("defendant") for reconsideration (DE # 16). Plaintiff did not timely file a response within the time
permitted for so doing. In this posture, the issues raised are ripe for review. For the reasons that
follow, defendant's motion for reconsideration is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 6, 2010.

On

February 28,2011, the court conducted frivolity review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court
determined that several individual defendants, as well as the North Carolina Department of Health
and Human Services, Division ofMedicaid Assistance ("NCDHHS"), were improper defendants for
purposes of § 1983. However, the court could not reach the same conclusion as to Dare County
Airport Authority, and therefore permitted plaintiffs claims to proceed against it while dismissing
plaintiff s claims against all other defendants.
Defendant was served with copy of summons and complaint on March 22, 2011, and filed

verified answer, together with supporting exhibits, on April 12, 2011. On April 19, 2011, defendant
filed the instant motion for reconsideration, seeking review of the court's frivolity determination.
Plaintiff did not respond.
The court notes that on April 19, 2011, defendant also filed motion to dismiss together with
motion for judgment on the pleadings (DE # 18), which have been fully briefed. On May 31, 2011,
plaintiff filed motion to appoint counsel (DE # 24) and motion for summary judgment (DE # 25),
which also have been fully briefed. The clerk of court is directed to refer these motions to United
States Magistrate Judge William A. Webb for review and entry of memorandum and
recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Finally, as to the status of the case schedule, the court notes that its initial order issued on
May 4, 2011. Defendant filed motion to stay commencement of discovery pending resolution ofthe
above-referenced dispositive motions, which motion was granted June 7, 2011.

DISCUSSION
Defendant now seeks reconsideration of the court's frivolity determination, asserting that
plaintiff provided incomplete information in his complaint and supporting exhibits, and that
therefore the court in making its frivolity determination was not fully informed. On this basis,
defendant asserts that, now presented with more complete information, the court should reconsider
its previous order and dismiss plaintiffs claims.
Having considered the arguments raised, the court finds no cause to disturb its previous
determination on frivolity review. Defendant's arguments are more properly raised in form ofthose
motions, already ripe, which now are referred to the magistrate judge for review. Accordingly,
defendant's motion for reconsideration is denied.

2

CONCLUSION

Defendant's motion for reconsideration (DE # 16) is DENIED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to
refer the following motions to the magistrate judge for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l):
defendant's motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings (DE # 18), plaintiffs
motion to appoint counsel (DE # 24), and plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (DE # 25).
SO ORDERED, this the 19th day of July, 2011.

~os~

LO ISEW. FLANAG~
Chief United States District Judge

3