Filed: Jan. 13, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 13, 2016
Summary: ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION MICHAEL E. HEGARTY , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Review ("Motion") [ filed January 11, 2016; docket #52 ], seeking reconsideration of the Court's decision granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ see docket #50] and subsequent final judgment [ see docket #51]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court has construed his pleadings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers
Summary: ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION MICHAEL E. HEGARTY , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Review ("Motion") [ filed January 11, 2016; docket #52 ], seeking reconsideration of the Court's decision granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ see docket #50] and subsequent final judgment [ see docket #51]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court has construed his pleadings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers...
More
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
MICHAEL E. HEGARTY, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Review ("Motion") [filed January 11, 2016; docket #52], seeking reconsideration of the Court's decision granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [see docket #50] and subsequent final judgment [see docket #51]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court has construed his pleadings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the Motion.1
Initially, the Court notes that Plaintiff's Motion contains no certificate of conferral pursuant to D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(a), which in itself is enough to deny the motion. See McCoy v. West, 965 F.Supp. 34, 35 (D. Colo. 1997). Furthermore, the Motion merely disagrees with the Court's prior Order dismissing his case. The bases for granting reconsideration are extremely limited:
Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. 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.
Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). Plaintiff offers nothing to suggest that any of these factors are implicated in this case.
The Court determines that Plaintiffs' Motion raises no basis to alter or amend the original Order. As stated in the Order, under the standards set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), Plaintiff has failed to state a viable claim for retaliation under Title VII. As specified in the Order, a "claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Plaintiff's restatement of his conclusory arguments in the current Motion does nothing to change the outcome that he failed state a viable retaliation claim as discussed in the Order. See docket #50 (citing Zokari v. Gates, 561 F.3d 1076, 1081 (10th Cir. 2009) for the elements of retaliation).
Therefore, based on the foregoing and the entire record herein, this Court orders that Plaintiff's Motion for Review [filed January 11, 2016; docket #52] is denied.
