Haberman v. Banc of America

Filing 37

ORDER denying 35 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 3/29/16. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(ssh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:14-cv-12-RJC
LAWRENCE ALAN HABERMAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BANC OF AMERICA,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration,
(Doc. No. 35), and Defendant’s Response in Opposition, (Doc. No. 36).
The Court previously found that Plaintiff failed to perfect service on Defendant, but
granted a twenty-one day extension to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4 because he demonstrated good cause for the failure. (Doc. No. 17). However, Plaintiff failed
to perfect service on Defendant, and on September 15, 2016, the Court granted Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice. (Doc. No. 33).
Plaintiff now moves for the Court to reconsider pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
The disposition of motions under Rule 60(b) is a matter within the discretion of the
district court. Werner v. Carbo, 731 F.2d 204, 206 (4th Cir. 1984). A party seeking relief under
Rule 60(b) must make a showing of timeliness, a meritorious defense, a lack of unfair prejudice
to the opposing party, and exceptional circumstances. Id. at 206–07. Plaintiff fails to present
any meritorious defense or exceptional circumstances. The Court finds, therefore, that Plaintiff
has not made the requisite showing that he is entitled to relief pursuant to Rule 60(b).

Accordingly, his Motion must be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc.
No. 35), is DENIED.
Signed: March 29, 2016

2