JONES v. CHAPMAN, ELH-14-2627. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Maryland
Number: infdco20170413d75
Visitors: 32
Filed: Apr. 12, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 12, 2017
Summary: LETTER TO COUNSEL STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER , Magistrate Judge . Dear Counsel: I have reviewed Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's March 7, 2017 Order ("Motion") and Defendants' Opposition thereto. [ECF Nos. 131, 142]. Plaintiffs' Motion essentially reiterates arguments that I considered, and rejected, in my March 7, 2017 opinion. See [ECF No. 130]. No new arguments have been raised. It is unclear from Plaintiffs' Motion whether it is intended to be a Motion for Reconside
Summary: LETTER TO COUNSEL STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER , Magistrate Judge . Dear Counsel: I have reviewed Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's March 7, 2017 Order ("Motion") and Defendants' Opposition thereto. [ECF Nos. 131, 142]. Plaintiffs' Motion essentially reiterates arguments that I considered, and rejected, in my March 7, 2017 opinion. See [ECF No. 130]. No new arguments have been raised. It is unclear from Plaintiffs' Motion whether it is intended to be a Motion for Reconsider..
More
LETTER TO COUNSEL
STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER, Magistrate Judge.
Dear Counsel:
I have reviewed Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's March 7, 2017 Order ("Motion") and Defendants' Opposition thereto. [ECF Nos. 131, 142]. Plaintiffs' Motion essentially reiterates arguments that I considered, and rejected, in my March 7, 2017 opinion. See [ECF No. 130]. No new arguments have been raised. It is unclear from Plaintiffs' Motion whether it is intended to be a Motion for Reconsideration addressed to me, or an appeal of my discovery ruling to the District Judge. To the extent that it is intended to be the former, the Motion [ECF No. 131] is DENIED for the reasons stated in my March 7, 2017 opinion. To the extent it is intended to be the latter, Plaintiff should re-file the motion as an appeal, referencing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and the legal standard set forth therein. I recognize that the reply period on Plaintiff's Motion has not yet lapsed, but I wish to provide the parties with sufficient time to pursue further recourse, if so desired.
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it will be flagged as an Opinion and docketed as an Order.
Source: Leagle
