Underdue v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying 18 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 10/27/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(jlk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:14-cv-183-RJC
FELICIA ANN UNDERDUE,
Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., and
PATEL, KENDRA BROWN, SUSAN
LYBRAND,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration, captioned “Opposition to the order Granting Motion to Dismiss on the Grounds
of Having Failed to Plead Sufficient Factual Content to Support the Complaint.” (Doc. No. 18).
I.

BACKGROUND
On August 13, 2014, this Court issued an Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

and dismissing the case with prejudice. (Doc. 16). Subsequent to that Order, on August 18,
2014, Plaintiff brought this Motion requesting the Court to reconsider its decision. (Doc. 18).
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
Upon review of the Defendant’s Motion, the Court finds that the Defendant has not stated

good cause for reconsideration of the Court’s Order. Here, Plaintiff fails to adequately present
newly discovered evidence or correct manifest errors of law in this Court’s prior Order. 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). Nor is it proper for the Court to entertain new, unrelated arguments, presented
for the first time. Wiseman, 215 F.R.D. at 509. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration is denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.

Signed: October 27, 2014

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc.18), is DENIED.