McDaniels v. Wright et al
ORDER denying 39 motion requesting reconsideration or relief of the Order dismissing this case. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L. Wooten on 11/17/2017. (bgoo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Kevin Wayne McDaniels,
Case No. 1:14-cv-3728-TLW
Chuck Wright, Spartanburg Co. Sheriff; Tim Tucker,
Spartanburg Co. Sheriff Deputy; Phil Easler,
Spartanburg Co. Sheriff Deputy; Barry Barnette,
Spartanburg Co. Solicitor; Robert B. Hall,
Spartanburg Co. Public Defender; Durham Cole,
Spartanburg Co. Chief Judge; Alan Wilson, South
Carolina Attorney General; Leah Moody, Attorney at
Law; Kevin Owens, Attorney at Law; South Carolina
Department of Corrections, sued in their individual
and official capacity,
Kevin Wayne McDaniels,
Case No. 1:14-cv-4197-TLW
State of South Carolina; Alan Wilson, SC Attorney
General; Nikki Haley, SC Governor; Derham Cole,
Chief Judge of Sptg. County; Barry Barnette, Chief
Prosecutor of Spartanburg Co.; Chuck Wright,
Spartanburg Co. Sheriff; Tim Tucker, Spartanburg
Co. Police Officer; Phil Easler, Spartanburg Co.
Police Officer; Robert Hall, Spartanburg Co. Public
Defender; sued in their individual and official
Kevin W. McDaniels,
Case No. 2:14-cv-4636-TLW
Judge Shiva Hodges; Judge Derham Cole,
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Kevin Wayne McDaniels’s filing captioned
“Motion to Reopen Case Based Upon Newly Discovered Evidence,” which seeks reconsideration
of the Court’s Orders dismissing McDaniels’s above-captioned cases and to reopen the cases. Case
No. 1:14-cv-3728-TLW, ECF No. 39; Case No. 1:14-cv-4197-TLW, ECF No. 37; Case No.
2:14-cv-4636-TLW, ECF No. 40.
The Court has carefully reviewed the relevant filings and concludes that McDaniels fails
to show any intervening change in controlling law, account for new evidence, or show clear error
of law or manifest injustice. Although McDaniels alleges he is innocent, his argument is based on
broad assertions and he does not present sufficient evidence of manifest injustice, extraordinary
circumstances, or new evidence. The Court concludes that McDaniels has not set forth sufficient
grounds to cause the Court to alter, amend, or vacate its prior Orders, or to reopen the abovecaptioned cases. Further, his claims and vague factual allegations in support of those claims do not
present sufficient evidence in support of any Rule 60(b) factor for which the Court may grant relief.
Thus, the Court concludes that, even if this motion was not time-barred under Rule 60, McDaniels
fails to set forth a sufficient basis to be relieved of the Orders under Rule 60(b).
For the reasons stated, McDaniels’s motion requesting reconsideration or relief of the
Orders dismissing his cases, Case No. 1:14-cv-3728-TLW, ECF No. 20; Case No.
1:14-cv-4197-TLW, ECF No. 25; Case No. 2:14-cv-4636-TLW, ECF No. 29, or to reopen the
above-captioned cases, the motion, Case No. 1:14-cv-3728-TLW, ECF No. 39; Case No.
1:14-cv-4197-TLW, ECF No. 37; Case No. 2:14-cv-4636-TLW, ECF No. 40, is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
November 17, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?