Brown v. Charlotte Rentals LLC et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying 17 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 10/16/2015. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(chh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:15-cv-0043-FDW-DCK
TERRY L. BROWN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
CHARLOTTE RENTALS LLC and
CEDRIC MCCORKLE,
Defendants.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider. (Doc. No. 17).
In his motion, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, asks the Court to revisit the Order (Doc. No. 15)
dismissing the complaint as to individual Defendant Cedric McCorkle (“McCorkle”). For the
reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s instant motion fails to state any new material facts or circumstances to support
his argument that the Court should reconsider the Court’s prior order. Plaintiff’s motion provides
no legal argument under any theory that would entitle him to the relief he seeks. This Court
provided Plaintiff with three Roseboro notices in which he was instructed to cure his defective
complaint and to properly serve it upon the Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 10, 11, 13). Plaintiff’s
reasoning in his present motion makes clear that he continues to misunderstand the requirements
of effective service upon an individual. Moreover, the 120 day period allotted by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4 to effect service of process upon McCorkle has long expired. As such, the Court
sees no reason to modify its previous ruling that granted Defendant Cedric McCorkle’s Motion to
1

Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: October 16, 2015

2