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)

Download PDF
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?