Wagner v. Hampton et al

Filing 76

ORDER denying 75 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 7/29/2014.(ssam, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
)
Officer Monica Hampton; Officer Ruth
)
Daugherty; Officer Donald Simmons;
)
La Toshia Spearing;
PayComputerMonitoring.com; all in their )
)
Individual and Official Capacity,
)
)
Defendants.
_________________________________ )
Theodore Wagner,

C/A No.: 2:13-cv-02406-GRA

ORDER
(Written Opinion)

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Petition for Reconsideration
and Clarification of Constitutional Challenge. ECF No. 75. For the reasons set forth
below, Plaintiff’s Petition is DENIED.
Background
On September 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint against the above
named Defendants. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff asserts that these Defendants conspired in
violation of his constitutionally protected rights. Id. Plaintiff was allowed to bring this
claim in forma pauperis. ECF No. 10. Magistrate Judge Dixon filed a Report and
Recommendation on July 2, 2014 recommending that this Court (1) grant
Defendants’ motions to dismiss; (2) dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6); (3) deny Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO; and (4) find all of Plaintiff’s other
outstanding motions moot. ECF No. 69. Objections to the magistrate’s Report and
Recommendation were due by July 21, 2014. On July 18, 2014, Plaintiff moved for

Page 1 of 4

an extension of time to file objections to the magistrate’s Report and
Recommendation, stating that an extension of time was needed for three reasons: (1)
“[his] poverty”—“[he] ha[s] no money” and uses his “disability check on the first of the
month . . . to buy stamps and make copies;” (2) “[he] ha[s] not finished collecting new
evidence to prove this ongoing conspiracy”; and (3) “because of the ongoing
conspiracy to oppress Redress of a lawful challenge of laws made in violation of the
First Amendment has not been given redress yet.” ECF No. 72. Plaintiff did not
specify the amount of time needed to file objections, but asked this Court “to hold off
on any ruling.” Id. This Court denied Plaintiff’s request for an extension on July 21,
2014. ECF No. 73. Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of this Court’s denial of an
extension of time to file objections to the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation.
Standard of Review
Plaintiff brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se
pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those
drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This
Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow
for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S.
364, 365 (1982).

However, a district court may not construct the plaintiff's legal

arguments for him, Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411 (7th Cir.1993), nor is a district
court required to recognize “obscure or extravagant claims defying the most
concerted efforts to unravel them.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274,
1277 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1088 (1986).

Page 2 of 4

Plaintiff seeks to bring this claim in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without
prepaying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. See ECF No. 3.
To protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute requires a district
court to dismiss the case upon a finding that the action “is frivolous or malicious,”
“fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Discussion
As motions to reconsider are not expressly contemplated by the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the court will treat Plaintiff’s Petition for Reconsideration as a Rule
59 motion to alter or amend a judgment. Rule 59(e) allows a party to file a motion to
alter or amend a judgment within “28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e). A motion to alter or amend a judgment is “an extraordinary remedy
which should be used sparingly.” Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d
396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (quoting 11 Wright et. al, Federal Practice and Procedure §
2810.1, at 124 (2d ed. 1995)). It may only be granted for three reasons: “(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.” Id. Furthermore, a Rule 59(e) motion “may not be used to relitigate old
matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior
to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008)
(quoting 11 Wright et. al, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, at 127–28 (2d ed.
1995)).

Page 3 of 4

Plaintiff’s current motion does not present new controlling law or evidence, nor
does it point to any clear legal error of this Court. This Court finds that its previous
order, denying Plaintiff’s request for additional time to respond to the magistrate’s
report and recommendation, is still appropriate.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for

reconsideration should be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Petition for Reconsideration and
Clarification of Constitutional Challenge is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 29 , 2014
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff has the right to appeal this Order within thirty (30) days from the date
of the entry of this Order, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure. Failure to meet this deadline, as modified by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure, will waive the right to appeal.

Page 4 of 4