Dehoyos v. LaManna

Filing 35

ORDER (Written Opinion) denying 33 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 06/09/2010.(ncha, ) Modified on 6/11/2010 to edit text (ncha, ).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION

Junior F. Dehoyos, #98229-198 Plaintiff, v. John LaManna, Warden, and Rodney E. Rogers Defendants. __________________________________

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C/A No.: 8:08-cv-2136-GRA

ORDER (Written Opinion)

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's letter asking this Court to reconsider its March 20, 2009, dismissal of his § 1983 action without prejudice for failing to exhaust administrative remedies. After a review of the record, this Court reaffirms its prior decision. 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. See 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. See Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982). Based on the mandate to construe pro se pleadings liberally, this Court will treat Plaintiff's letter to the Court as a Motion for Reconsideration.

Page 1 of 2

After a thorough review of the record, this Court finds that its prior decision was and is correct as a matter of law. The Court appropriately adopted the

magistrate's Report and Recommendation. Consequently, this Court must deny Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 9 , 2010 Anderson, South Carolina

Page 2 of 2