Cummings v. Bank of America NA et al
Filing
87
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 80 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 12/27/2012. (asp)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
MICHAEL R. CUMMINGS,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
vs.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.;
RECONTRUST CO., N.A.; BAC HOME
LOANS SERVICING, L.P.;
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.;
AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER;
STUART T. MATHESON; UTAH
FUNDING;
Case No. 2:11-CV-272 TS
Defendants.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Michael R. Cummings’ Motion for Reconsideration.1
The Tenth Circuit has recognized the following grounds as warranting a motion to reconsider
under Rule 59(e): “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously
1
Docket No. 80.
1
unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”2 “Thus, a motion
for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s position,
or the controlling law. . . . It is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance
arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.”3
As Plaintiff is proceeding with his Motion pro se, the Court will construe his pleadings
liberally.4 Plaintiff appears to argue that the Court—in its order dismissing Plaintiff’s case—did not
consider certain facts or arguments proposed by Plaintiff. The Court would note that although it did
not specifically mention each of the alleged facts that Plaintiff believes entitle him to relief, the Court
nevertheless considered those facts along with all other arguments advanced by Plaintiff in
dismissing his Complaint. As Plaintiff has not alleged any grounds adequate for this Court to
reconsider the judgment under Rule 59(e), the Court will deny this request.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 80) is DENIED.
2
Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2005) (second alteration
to reflect change in Rule 59) (citing Brumark Corp. v. Samson Res. Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948
(10th Cir. 1995)).
3
Id.
4
See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
2
DATED December 27, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
3
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?