Machnik v. Jewell et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying 37 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 01/03/18. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(emw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:16 cv 104
PATRICIA BLOKER MACHNIK

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiff’s
Motion for Change of Venue [# 37]. On October 23, 2017, pro se Plaintiff filed her
motion to change venue [# 29]. On December 7, 2017, the Court made findings and
denied the motion [# 35]. On December 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed, within her
response, a Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Venue.
While not specifically provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
motions for reconsideration are “allowed in certain, limited circumstances.”
Wiseman v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 215 F.R.D. 507, 509 (W.D.N.C. 2003).
The motion to reconsider would be appropriate where, for example, the
Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision
outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or
has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension. A further basis
for a motion to reconsider would be a controlling or significant change
in the law or facts since the submission of the issue to the Court. Such
problems rarely arise and the motion to reconsider should be equally
rare.

Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va.
1983); see Carlson v. Boston Scientific Corp., 856 F.3d 320, 325 (4th Cir. 2017);
Frankum v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2015 WL 3514327 (W.D.N.C. June 4, 2015).
Plaintiff has not established that the Court misunderstood her.
Giving pro se Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, the Court looked at Plaintiff’s
Response and Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff merely responds point by point
to the Court’s analysis and requests a reconsideration. Nothing cited would tip the
analysis in Plaintiff’s favor.
Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration [# 37].

Signed: January 3, 2018