Allen v. Perri et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying 7 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 8/25/16. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(ssh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:16-cv-00177-RJC
BETTY P. ALLEN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
A. PERRI, Doctor;
)
SUSAN DENISE STUREGESS, M.D.; )
CAROLINAS MEDICAL MAIN,
)
CHARLOTTE, NC;
)
PIEDMONT EMERGENCY
)
MEDICINE ASSOCIATES, PA;
)
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG
)
HOSPITAL AUTHORITY,
)
d/b/a CAROLINAS HEALTHCARE )
SYSTEM; CAROLINAS MEDICAL )
CENTER–UNIVERSITY; TIM
)
WOOD, Mecklenburg County Clerk; )
CHRISTOPHER MAURIELLO,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Pro Se Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.
(Doc. No. 7).
The Court previously found that Plaintiff failed to file her Complaint within the statute of
limitations, and therefore, the Court dismissed the Complaint on May 9, 2016. (Doc. No. 5). The
Court further noted that, even if Plaintiff’s action was not time-barred, Plaintiff’s civil rights claim
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was without merit because none of the defendants qualify as state actors.
(Id.). Therefore, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice. (Id.).
Although not specified, it appears Plaintiff is now moving for the Court to reconsider its
dismissal of her action, as she states she is “asking for a reversal of decision.” (Doc. No. 7).

Plaintiff’s motion is treated as a motion for relief from judgment under 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 she is entitled to relief pursuant to Rule 60(b).
Accordingly, her Motion must be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc. No.
7), is DENIED.
Signed: August 25, 2016