Morris v. Fallin et al

Filing 67

ORDER denying 46 Motion Appealing Order filed 6/23/2017. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 9/1/2017. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DARRELL MORRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOVERNOR MARY FALLIN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-16-1297-D

ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s pro se filing, entitled “Motion
Appealing Order filed 6/23/17 by the Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti” [Doc. No. 46].
Liberally construed, Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s Order of June 23,
2017 [Doc. No. 43], adopting the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc.
No. 34] to dismiss certain claims and parties, and permit Plaintiff to proceed only on the
plausible claims stated in the Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 29].
Upon consideration, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider falls within
a district court’s inherent authority to revise interlocutory orders at any time before the
entry of a final judgment. See Warren v. Am. Bankers Ins., 507 F.3d 1239, 1243 (10th Cir.
2007); Riggs v. Scrivner, Inc., 927 F.2d 1146, 1148 (10th Cir. 1991). The Court further
finds, however, that Plaintiff fails to present any proper grounds warranting reconsideration
of the prior ruling. See Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir.
2000); see also United States v. Christy, 739 F.3d 534, 539 (10th Cir. 2014); Van Skiver v.
United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion Appealing Order filed
6/23/17 by the Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti” [Doc. No. 46], construed as a motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of September, 2017.

2