Collins v. Callister et al
Filing
41
ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 7/27/2017 DENYING 39 Plaintiff's Second Motion for Reconsideration. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Maurice Collins at Wisconsin Secure Program Facility) (cb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
MAURICE COLLINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 16-cv-1151-pp
TODD CALLISTER,
BONNIE HALPER, and
JEFFREY MANLOVE,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION (DKT. NO. 39)
______________________________________________________________________________
On May 15, 2017, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment and dismissed the case. Dkt. No. 33. The plaintiff filed a motion for
reconsideration, which the court denied. Dkt. No. 35. The court explained that
the plaintiff had not met the standard for the court to alter or amend its
judgment, because he offered only bare assertions that were not supported by
evidence. Dkt. No. 38
The plaintiff now has filed a second motion for reconsideration, which
contains the same unsupported allegations that he made in his first motion.
Dkt. No. 39. The court understands that the plaintiff believes that the court
should allow him to proceed with his case, but he has offered no valid reason
why the court should reconsider its decision to grant the defendants’ motion
for summary judgment or its decision to deny the plaintiff’s first motion for
reconsideration.
1
Accordingly, the court DENIES the plaintiff’s second motion for
reconsideration (Dkt. No. 39).
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 27th day of July, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge
2
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?