Key v. Colvin

Filing 9

ORDER denying 8 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 8 Motion for Hearing. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 7/28/14. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(tob)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:13-cv-395-RJC-DCK
MARIA LYNN KEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Maria Lynn Key’s Motion
for Reconsideration, (Doc. 8). It is ripe for review.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this suit on June 7, 2013. (Doc. 1). The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis on July 18, 2013. (Doc. 3). On September 12, 2013, the Magistrate
Judge issued an order allowing Plaintiff until February 1, 2014 to pay the filing fee to the Court
and to serve the summons and complaint on Defendant. (Doc. 5). That deadline passed without
any action on Plaintiff’s part. On March 18, 2014, this Court issued an order dismissing
Plaintiff’s case without prejudice. On May 27, 2014, Plaintiff brought this motion for
reconsideration. Specifically, Plaintiff states that she was unable to pay the filing fee in the
allotted time as she had to take care of ailing family members. Plaintiff offered no legal support
for her request for reconsideration.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically address motions for

reconsideration, they come “in the nature of a motion to alter or amend the prior judgment of the

Court under Rule 59(e),” Christian v. Moore, No. 3:13-cv-100-FDW-DSC, 2013 WL 937764, at
*1 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 11, 2013), and “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 purpose of a
motion to reconsider is to present the Court with newly discovered evidence or to correct
manifest errors of law in a prior order. DirecTV, Inc. v. Hart, 366 F. Supp. 2d 315, 317
(E.D.N.C. 2004) (quoting Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3rd Cir. 1985)). “Such
problems rarely arise and the motion to reconsider should be equally rare.” Wiseman, 215
F.R.D. at 509 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101
(E.D. Va. 1983)).
III.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff missed several deadlines in this case; indeed, Plaintiff missed all relevant

deadlines imposed by this Court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of
this district. Plaintiff missed these deadlines despite the fact that the Magistrate Judge granted
her several months—from September 13, 2013 until February 1, 2014—to pay her filing fee and
serve the summons and complaint upon the Defendant. Plaintiff did neither of these. It is for
this that the Court dismissed of Plaintiff’s claim.
Although this Court could have dismissed Plaintiff’s claim with prejudice, it declined to
do so; instead the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim without prejudice to allow Plaintiff the
opportunity to re-file her claim in the case that she still wished to prosecute it. Plaintiff has now
filed a motion for reconsideration without including any legal support for her motion. Even
considering the liberal standard accorded to pro se Plaintiffs, Plaintiff’s motion is without merit.
Accordingly, having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, this Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration.

2

IV.

CONCLUSION
A motion to reconsider cannot “merely ask[] the court ‘to rethink what the Court had

already thought through—rightly or wrongly.’” DirecTV, Inc., 366 F. Supp. 2d at 317 (quoting
Harsco, 779 F.2d at 909).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider, (Doc. 8), is DENIED.

2.

This case is closed.

Signed: July 28, 2014

3