Bobka v. Joyner

Filing 19

ORDER denying 18 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 6/18/2018. (bgoo)

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

Richard J. Bobka,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
Warden Joyner,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________)

C/A No.: 0:18-1029-JFA

ORDER

The Plaintiff, Richard J. Bobka (Bobka) filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §
2241. (ECF No. 1). This matter is currently before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration. (ECF No. 18).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c),
(D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge. On April 27, 2018, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that Bobka’s
Petition should be dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff filed an objection
to the Report on May 11, 2018. (ECF No. 10). On, May 31, 2018, this Court issued an
order, adopting the Magistrate’s recommendation. (ECF No. 15). On June 15, 2018,
Plaintiff filed his Motion for Consideration. (ECF No. 18).
The Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarized the
facts and applied the correct principles of law. The Plaintiff’s objections to the

1

Magistrate’s Report were unfounded. See (ECF No. 10). This Court addressed each of his
objections and adopted the Magistrate’s Report. See (ECF No. 15).
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that motions to reconsider should
only be granted under a “very narrow set of circumstances: ‘(1) to accommodate an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at
trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.’” Hill v. Braxton,
277 F.3d 701, 708 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Collision v. Int’l Chem. Workers Union, 34
F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 1994)). “Moreover, [motions to reconsider] may not be used to
make arguments that could have been made before the judgment was entered.” Id.
Here, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration does not meet the standard because
Plaintiff has not identified a change in the law, new evidence, a clear error of law, or a
risk of manifest injustice. Moreover, any of the assertions Plaintiff made in his Motion to
Reconsider could have been made in his objections to the Magistrate’s Report. Therefore,
this Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 18).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 18, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2