Azubuko v. Massachusetts Supreme Judical Court et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying 15 Third Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 7/2/2012. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

CHUKWUMA E. AZUBUKO,
Plaintiff,
vs.

MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL
COURT and DORCHESTER’S DISTRICT
COURT,
Defendants.

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

NO. CIV-11-503-D

ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a third motion for reconsideration [Doc. No. 15] of this Court’s June 23,
2011 Order [Doc. No. 7] dismissing this case without prejudice. Although Plaintiff labels his motion
as the second motion seeking reconsideration, the Court file establishes that he filed two previous
motions to reconsider, and both were denied. On May 10, 2012, the Court filed an Order [Doc. No.
11] denying his first motion for reconsideration. On May 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed a second motion
for reconsideration [Doc. No. 12], and the Court denied that motion in its June 11, 2012 Order [Doc.
No. 14].
Plaintiff filed the instant motion on June 22, 2012. The Court has reviewed the motion, and
finds that it contains no new argument or authority which could support a proper motion pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or a motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Instead,
it contains the same arguments rejected by the Court in its Order [Doc. No. 11] denying the initial
motion for reconsideration.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief he seeks in the instant

motion, and his motion [Doc. No. 15] is DENIED. This action remains closed.1
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of July, 2012.

1

The Plaintiff’s continuous filing of motions for reconsideration likely violates Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b), which could
support monetary sanctions under Rule 11(c). Any future violative conduct by Plaintiff will result in the consideration
of such sanctions by the Court.

2