Rainey v. Bethea et al

Filing 67

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 66 motion to reopen the case, construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment. Signed by Honorable Richard M. Gergel on 8/22/2017. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Larry Jerome Rainey,
Plaintiff,
v.

Classification Mr. Bethea, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 0:16-2113-RMG

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs pro se motion to reopen the case, which the
Court construes as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. The Court granted summary judgment for Defendants on July 20, 2017. Plaintiff
now states that he has been denied access to the prison law library and to materials necessary for
the prosecution of his case. (Dkt. No. 65.) The Court, however, ruled on the merits of a summary
judgment motion that was fully briefed, including a brief in opposition from Plaintiff (see Dkt. No.
54 ). The Court granted summary judgment for Defendants "because Plaintiff has produced no
evidence that a serious deprivation of medical care or accommodations has occurred." (Dkt. No.
62 at 3.) To have that judgment set aside, Plaintiff must present some evidence that serious
deprivation of medical care or accommodations has occurred and a satisfactory explanation about
why that evidence was not produced earlier. See Small v. Hunt, 98 F.3d 789, 798 (4th Cir. 1996).
Even if the Court were to accept Plaintiffs explanation about his inability to make timely filings
(which is dubious given that summary judgment was granted only after this case had been pending
for a full year), Plaintiff has still failed to provide any evidence that might create a genuine dispute
of material fact.

-1-

...
The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs motion to reopen the case, construed as a motion
to alter or amend judgment.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Court Judge
August ~L., 2017
Charleston, South Carolina

-2-