United States of America et al v. Lower Florence County Hospital District et al

Filing 174

ORDER denying 171 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 02/15/2022.(dsto, )

4:17-cv-00018-TER

Date Filed 02/15/22

Entry Number 174

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Ex rel. Erica Poston,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
-vs)
)
)
LOWER FLORENCE COUNTY
)
HOSPITAL DISTRICT d/b/a Lake
)
City Community Hospital,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-0018-TER

ORDER

Presently before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 171) of the
Court’s Order (ECF No. 167) dismissing this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b) and 41(b).
Plaintiff’s Motion consists of one paragraph:
I kindly request that the court reconsider its motion to dismiss. It is my
understanding that Rule 12(b)(6) that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure
to state a claim which would entitle him to relief, unless it appears beyond doubt that
the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim. My complaint has
already addressed the merits at length, and have been verified as factual evidence.
The defendant failed to respond to the complaint in its entirety, therefore preventing
me, the plaintiff, to move forward with pr[o]ceedings. My efforts to obtain this
information from the defendants went unacknowledged. Further efforts were also
denied by the courts. Based on the above information as well as my extended time
of hardship I ask the court to reconsider the order to dismiss and order the defendants
to respond to the complaint in its entirety.
Motion for Reconsideration p. 1 (ECF No. 171).
The Fourth Circuit has recognized three grounds for amending an earlier judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e): (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

4:17-cv-00018-TER

Date Filed 02/15/22

Entry Number 174

Page 2 of 3

manifest injustice. Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998). Further,
reconsideration of a judgment after its entry pursuant to Rule 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy that
should be used sparingly. Id. None of Plaintiff’s arguments fall within these three recognized
grounds for amending a judgment.
As an initial matter, Plaintiff mentions Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). However, this case was not
dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for a failure to state a claim, but pursuant to Rules 37(b) and
41(b) for Plaintiff’s failure to participate in the discovery process and otherwise prosecute this case.
Plaintiff states that Defendant failed to response to the complaint “in its entirety,” but provides no
further explanation. The record reflects that Defendant filed an Answer (ECF No. 95) to Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint on August 16, 2019.
Plaintiff also asserts that her efforts to obtain information from Defendant went
unacknowledged and were denied by the court. The only reflection in the record regarding this
argument is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 124), in which she asks
the court to extend the scheduling order “to allow defendants’ good faith response to interrogatories,
discovery. ... All interrogatories should be hand-written by defendants and not counsel.” In its Order
(ECF No. 143), the court noted that, to the extent Plaintiff’s motion could be construed as one to
compel discovery responses, “Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how Defendant’s responses were
deficient.” Nevertheless, as stated above, Plaintiff’s arguments fail to identify an intervening change
in controlling law, to account for new evidence not available at trial, or to correct a clear error of law
or prevent manifest injustice. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 170)
is DENIED.

-2-

4:17-cv-00018-TER

Date Filed 02/15/22

Entry Number 174

Page 3 of 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
February 15, 2022
Florence, South Carolina

-3-