Sterner v. Woodforest National Bank et al
ORDER denying Pltf's 10 Motion for Reconsideration re 3 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, 4 Clerk's Judgment. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 07/03/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (klb)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CIVIL CASE NOS. 1:13-cv-00229-MR-DLH and 1:14-cv-00092-MR-DLH
STEPHEN GEORGE STERNER,
WOODFOREST NATIONAL BANK
and WOODFOREST BANK,
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration [Civil Case No. 1:13-cv-00229-MR-DLH, Doc. 10; Civil
Case No. 1:14-cv-00092-MR-DLH, Doc. 7].
The Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Orders dismissing these
civil actions, as well as the Order denying his Motion to Amend in Civil
Case No. 1:14-cv-00092-MR-DLH [Doc. 6].
Specifically, the Plaintiff
requests that these two civil actions should be reconsidered together and
by a different judge, as the Plaintiff believes that “Judge Dennis Howell has
shown bais [sic] to me and my case….” [Doc. 7 at 1].
The Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is without merit. The Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the dismissal of Civil Case No.
Sterner v. Woodforest National Bank, 556 F.
App’x 273 (4th Cir. 2014). Moreover, while the Plaintiff complains of judicial
bias on the part of Magistrate Judge Howell, it was the undersigned, and
not Magistrate Judge Howell, who ordered the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s
Accordingly, for the reasons previously stated in the Court’s
Orders dismissing the Plaintiff’s actions and denying his motion to amend,
the Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is denied.
Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s
motion for reconsideration [Civil Case No. 1:13-cv-00229-MR-DLH, Doc.
10; Civil Case No. 1:14-cv-00092-MR-DLH, Doc. 7] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?