Michelson v. Miller et al
ORDER denying Pltf's 20 Motion for Reconsideration; denying as moot Pltf's 24 Motion for Transcript at Government Expense; and Clerk is respectfully instructed to transmit the 16 Second Amended Complaint, the issued 19 proposed summons, and this Order to the U.S. Marshals Service for service of process on Deft Colby Dodd. Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 1/06/2020. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (ejb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:19-cv-00311-MR
CHRISTOPHER LEE MICHELSON,
QUINTIN MILLER, et al.,
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider
[Doc. 20] and Plaintiff’s Motion for Transcript at Government Expense [Doc.
Pro se Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Buncombe County Detention
Facility (BCDF), filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [Doc. 13] was dismissed on initial review and
Plaintiff was granted the opportunity to amend.1 [Doc. 15]. The Second
Amended Complaint passed initial review against Defendant Colby Dodd, a
physician’s assistant at BCDF, on a claim of deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need, and the remining claims were dismissed for failure to
This case was assigned to Judge Frank D. Whitney at that time.
Case 1:19-cv-00311-MR Document 27 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 3
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. [Doc. 18]. The Court also
denied Plaintiff’s requests for the appointment of counsel and to transfer the
case to another district based on allegations of fraud. [See id.].
Plaintiff has now filed this Motion to Reconsider in which he argues that
the dismissed claims should have been permitted to proceed and that this
case should be transferred to another District Court due to fraud. [Doc. 20].
“[A] district court retains the power to reconsider and modify its
interlocutory judgments . . . at any time prior to final judgment when such is
warranted.” Am. Canoe Ass’n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 514–15
(4th Cir. 2003); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration will be denied. Plaintiff has failed
to demonstrate that reconsideration is warranted with regards to the initial
review of his § 1983 claims or the request to transfer this action to another
district court. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff attempts to add new
claims or supplement his existing claims with additional allegations, this
attempt to amend the Second Amended Complaint on a piecemeal basis will
be denied. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.
In his Motion for Transcript, Plaintiff seeks a copy of a transcript for
purposes of his appeal in Fourth Cir. Case No. 20-7427. [Doc. 24]. The
Motion is moot because the Fourth Circuit has dismissed the appeal and
Case 1:19-cv-00311-MR Document 27 Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 3
denied his motion for a transcript at the Government’s expense. See [Doc.
26 at 2].
As Plaintiff’s appeal has been dismissed, the Clerk will be instructed to
transmit Plaintiff’s proposed summons [Doc. 19] to the U.S. Marshals
Service for service of process on Defendant Dodd.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s pro se Motion to
Reconsider [Doc. 20] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Transcript at
Government Expense [Doc. 24] is DENIED as moot.
The Clerk is respectfully instructed to transmit the Second Amended
Complaint [Doc. 16], proposed summons [Doc. 19], and this Order to the
U.S. Marshals Service for service of process on Defendant Colby Dodd.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: January 6, 2021
Case 1:19-cv-00311-MR Document 27 Filed 01/06/21 Page 3 of 3
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?