KIYO A. MATSUMOTO, District Judge.
Plaintiff Joyce A. McMahon ("plaintiff" or "Ms. McMahon") commenced two actions against Jeh Johnson
On January 20, 2016, the court issued orders adopting Judge Levy's Report and Recommendations ("R&R") in plaintiff's respective cases. (ECF No. 86, 12-cv-5878; ECF No. 63, 13-cv-1404.) On the same day, the court also denied plaintiff's motion to disqualify Judge Matsumoto and denied plaintiff's request for Judge Levy's recusal in her objections to the R&Rs. (ECF No. 87, 12-cv-5878; ECF No. 64, 13-cv-1404.) The court also denied plaintiff's motions for pre motion conferences as moot.
Plaintiff filed as motions for reconsideration identical letters in both cases on February 3, 2016 that were dated February 2, 2015. (ECF No. 88, 12-cv-5878; ECF No. 65, 13-cv-1404.) The letter noted that plaintiff "will be moving for Reconsideration on all three of your orders on each case" and "will simultaneously be filing Appeals with the New York Court of Appeals." Plaintiff then posed the following question to the court in her letter: "Is it correct that I have 30 days from January 20th to move for Reconsideration and 60 days to file my appeals?" On February 3, 2016, the court terminated the motions for reconsideration, noting that the court cannot provide legal advice and instructing plaintiff to consult the Local Rules for the Eastern District of New York, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Plaintiff requested extensions of time to file her motions for reconsideration in two letters, the first dated February 16, 2016 and filed on February 17, 2016, and the second dated and filed on March 2, 2016. (ECF Nos. 92 and 93, 12-cv-5878; ECF Nos. 67 and 71, 13-cv-1404.) The court granted plaintiff's requests for extensions.
Pending before the court are plaintiff's six motions for reconsideration filed on March 4, 2016. (ECF Nos. 99-101, 12-cv-5878; ECF Nos. 72-74, 13-cv-1404.) Plaintiff filed interlocutory appeals of the court's orders on March 1, 2016. (ECF Nos. 94-96, 12-cv-5878; ECF Nos. 68-70, 13-cv-1404.)
Preliminarily, the court must address the question of whether it has jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's motions for reconsideration notwithstanding the fact that she filed notices of appeal on March 1, 2016. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(B)(i):
As an initial matter, the court notes that the court has not entered judgment in this case, because the court's orders that are the subjects of plaintiff's motions for reconsideration did not dispose of the cases and are not final. Although plaintiff filed her motions for reconsideration on March 4, 2016, after filing her notices of appeal on March 1, 2016, the court nonetheless construes plaintiff's letters filed on February 3, 2016, which provided notice that plaintiff intended to file motions for reconsideration, as the date on which she filed her motion for reconsideration. Consequently, the court proceeds to decide the motions for reconsideration on their merits. See, e.g., Dama v. Seirup, 96-cv-2557, 2008 WL 1957772, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 2, 2008).
Local Civil Rule 6.3
Here, plaintiff's motions for reconsideration have failed to meet the strict standard meriting reconsideration; she has pointed to no controlling decisions or data that the court has overlooked. Consequently, plaintiff's motions for reconsideration are denied.