Wright v. Perry et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying 20 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 08/08/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(jlk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:14-cv-00231-MOC-DSC
EARL WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
JODY PERRY
CAROLYN HELMS
SELECTPORTIFLO
EXPERIAN CREDIT REPORTING AGENCY
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
BANK OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

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

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on plaintiff’s Motion to Deny Dismissal, which the
court deems to be a Motion to Reconsider under Rule 59(e) or a Motion for Relief from
Dismissal under Rule 60.
Beyond conclusory contentions as to what defendants have or have not done, and a
contention that “the plaintiff[’s] case was not considered,” plaintiff has not come forward with
any plausible argument or citation to any authority which would point to error or injustice in this
court’s dismissal of his action. Indeed, as the magistrate judge noted, this action is nearly
identical to an earlier action filed by plaintiff and dismissed by Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr. on
May 5, 2014. Wright v Bank of America, 3:14cv94-RJC-DSC, “Order” (document #9)
(affirming Memorandum and Recommendation and Order, granting Motion to Dismiss). For the
reasons previously stated in this court’s Order of Dismissal and the underlying Memorandum
and Recommendation, the instant motion is denied.

ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Deny Dismissal, which the
court deems to be a Motion to Reconsider under Rule 59(e) or a Motion for Relief from
Dismissal under Rule 60.plaintiff’s Motion to Deny Dismissal (#20) is DENIED.

Signed: August 8, 2014