Shield our Constitutional Rights and Justice et al v. Tippett, No. 8:2009cv00152 - Document 24 (D. Md. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 10/27/09. (sat, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : SHIELD OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND JUSTICE, et al. : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 2009-0152 : ADAM MAURICE TIPPETT : MEMORANDUM OPINION Presently Qihui Huang s pending motion and ready for September 11, 2009 order. for resolution reconsideration (Paper 20). of is the Plaintiff court s The issues are fully briefed and the court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed necessary. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff s motion for reconsideration will be denied. I. Background The background to this case may be found in the court s last memorandum opinion. (Paper 18, at 1-4). On September 11, 2009, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order dismissing Plaintiff Shield our Constitutional Rights and Justice for lack of standing and dismissing Plaintiff Huang s amended complaint for failure to state a claim. (Papers 18 and 19). Plaintiff Huang filed a motion for reconsideration on September 21, 2009. II. Standard of Review Courts have recognized three limited grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration pursuant to 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 manifest injustice. United States ex rel. Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2002)(quoting Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1012 (2003)). A motion to reconsider is not a license to reargue the merits or present new evidence. RGI, Inc. v. Unified Indus., Inc., 963 F.2d 658, 662 (4th Cir. 1992)). Motions for reconsideration are an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly. Pacific Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at 403. III. Analysis Plaintiff s motion for reconsideration does not meet any of three grounds for reconsideration and will be denied. extent that Plaintiff s comprehensible, Plaintiff lengthy has motion not and identified reply any To the briefs are intervening change in the law, newly developed evidence, or clear error of law or manifest injustice that would alter the court s September 11, 2009 opinion. Contrary to Plaintiff s assertions, the court made its determination that Plaintiff failed to state any claim by construing the facts in her favor and by testing the legal 2 sufficiency of her claims. Therefore, the court will deny motion for Plaintiff s motion. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, reconsideration will be denied. Plaintiff s A separate Order will follow. /s/ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
