Smith v. Snodgrass et al
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West denying 77 Motion to Alter Order/Judgment. (adw, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DEBY SNODGRASS; KRIS MAREK;
BRYCE TODD; CLAUDIA CONNER;
GREGORY SNIDER; SCOTT LANGE;
LESSLEY PULLIAM; and
Case No. CIV-14-201-KEW
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to
Alter Judgment (Docket Entry #77).
This action was expressly and
constitutional procedural due process rights in the termination of
Defendant’s summary judgment motion and dismissed this action. The
facts related in that Opinion and Order will not be unnecessarily
Plaintiff’s termination in advance of the pre-termination hearing;
(2) failing to grant Plaintiff a continuance of the pre-termination
hearing; and (3) failing to use progressive discipline instead of
termination for Plaintiff’s transgressions.
Plaintiff brings this Motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
intervening change in the controlling law, new evidence previously
unavailable, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.” Figueroa v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida, 517
F.Supp.2d 1266, 1270 (D.Colo. 2006) (citing Servants of Paraclete
v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).
Such a motion is
not the appropriate vehicle to “revisit issues already addressed or
advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.”
Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012 (citing Van Skiver v.
United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991)).
failure to present his strongest case in the first instance does
not entitle him to a second chance in the form of a motion to
Cline v. Southern Star Cent. Gas Pipeline, Inc., 370
F.Supp.2d 1130, 1132 (D.Kan. 2005); see also Syntroleum Corp. v.
Fletcher Int'l, 2009 WL 761322, at *1 (N.D .Okla. Mar. 19, 2009)
extraordinary circumstances, not to offer second bite at proverbial
apple). Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is committed
to the court's discretion.
See Hancock v. City of Okla. City, 857
F.2d 1394, 1395 (10th Cir. 1988).
The only basis under Rule 59(e)
implicated by Plaintiff’s Motion is the need to correct clear error
and prevent manifest injustice.
Plaintiff’s primary argument lies with his belief that this
Court did not adequately consider the testimony of Defendant’s
Human Resources Director Scott Lange (“Lange”). Plaintiff contends
alleged misconduct in asking another employee if he shot a murdered
Plaintiff contends Lange’s failure to perform an
adequate investigation into Plaintiff’s conduct indicates that the
result was predetermined. Plaintiff chooses to ignore this Court’s
responsible for considering Plaintiff’s termination at the pretermination hearing was Bryce Todd (“Todd”) - not Lange. Plaintiff
failed to demonstrate bias on the part of Todd in any respect or
that Todd had pre-determined the outcome of the hearing. Moreover,
investigation content or consider Plaintiff’s side of the story
because he did not attend the pre-termination hearing, despite
being given appropriate notice of the hearing.
Plaintiff also contends the pretext of the basis for the
termination turns on the fact that the OSBI was not investigating
This fact is immaterial.
The OSBI was contacted by
The fact an investigation was not actively being pursued
by the OSBI or that Lange considered that fact is of little moment
to whether Plaintiff was provided with adequate procedural due
process. Additionally, the pendency of an OSBI investigation was
not a basis for termination provided in the notice of termination
mention of a 2004 disciplinary incident.
Although the 2004
incident is referenced in the termination letter, the focus of the
hearing for which he received notice was the comment to the fellow
employee as conduct unbecoming a park ranger.
Again, if Plaintiff
had attended the pre-termination hearing, he would have known the
full extent of the discipline being considered.
Nothing in the
record suggests that Plaintiff would have attended the hearing if
he had known that the 2004 incident was to be considered in the
decision to terminate.
Plaintiff also challenges the consideration of his request to
continue the pre-termination hearing.
This issue was fully and
adequately addressed in this Court’s original Opinion and Order on
Defendants’ summary judgment motion.
Plaintiff’s request to alter
that Opinion and Order adds nothing to the previous argument.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter
Judgment (Docket Entry #77) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of September, 2017.
KIMBERLY E. WEST
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?