Carter v. Ervin et al

Filing 70

ORDER denying 69 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 6/3/2015. (gmil)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION

Dell Layfette Carter,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Rayford Ervin, Clover Police Dept.; Frank )
Sadler, Clover Police Dept.; Gary Love,
)
Clover Police Dept.; Richard Goach,
)
Clover Police Dept.; Lessley Mosely,
)
Clover Police Dept. Magistrate Judge
)
Edward Harvey; Costa Pleicone, Trial
)
Judge; Derham Cole, Trial Judge; Social
)
Security Administration; Solicitor
)
Willy Thompson; Public Defender Harry
)
Dest;
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No.: 0:14-cv-00865-TLW

ORDER
This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s uncaptioned filing docketed as a
motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 69). Plaintiff filed this § 1983 action on March 12, 2014,
asserting he was arrested without probable cause and in violation of his constitutional rights.
(ECF No. 1). After carefully review of the record and relevant authority, this Court accepted the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and dismissed the Plaintiff’s Complaint on June 2, 2014, for
failure to meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(ECF No. 30). Furthermore, the Court found that even if subject matter jurisdiction existed,
dismissal was still appropriate for a number of defendants because the Plaintiff’s complaint

1

contained legally frivolous allegations. (Id.). Plaintiff appealed the Court’s ruling to the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals, which summarily dismissed the appeal. (ECF No. 67).
The Court has carefully reviewed the motion, the record, and relevant authority, and finds
that no legally sufficient basis exists to alter or amend the Court’s June 2, 2014 Order. In
particular, the Plaintiff fails to show any intervening change in controlling law, account for any
new evidence, or show clear error of law or manifest injustice. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s
motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge

June 3, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

2