Filed: Oct. 28, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 28, 2015
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III , Chief District Judge . On September 21, 2015, Joel Patrick Christian and Sherrie Lavet Christian ("Christians" or "plaintiffs") filed a prose motion for reconsideration concerning this court's order of August 18, 2015. The court has considered the motion under the governing standard. See Zinkand v. Brown , 478 F.3d 634 , 637 (4th Cir. 2007); Bogart v. Chapell , 396 F.3d 548 , 555 (4th Cir. 2005); Hill v. Braxton , 277 F.3d 701 , 708 (4th Cir. 2002); Pac. I
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III , Chief District Judge . On September 21, 2015, Joel Patrick Christian and Sherrie Lavet Christian ("Christians" or "plaintiffs") filed a prose motion for reconsideration concerning this court's order of August 18, 2015. The court has considered the motion under the governing standard. See Zinkand v. Brown , 478 F.3d 634 , 637 (4th Cir. 2007); Bogart v. Chapell , 396 F.3d 548 , 555 (4th Cir. 2005); Hill v. Braxton , 277 F.3d 701 , 708 (4th Cir. 2002); Pac. In..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. DEVER, III, Chief District Judge.
On September 21, 2015, Joel Patrick Christian and Sherrie Lavet Christian ("Christians" or "plaintiffs") filed a prose motion for reconsideration concerning this court's order of August 18, 2015. The court has considered the motion under the governing standard. See Zinkand v. Brown, 478 F.3d 634, 637 (4th Cir. 2007); Bogart v. Chapell, 396 F.3d 548, 555 (4th Cir. 2005); Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 708 (4th Cir. 2002); Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998); Hughes v. Bedsole, 48 F.3d 1376, 1382 (4th Cir. 1995); Collison v. Int'l Chem. Workers Union, 34 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 1994); Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993). Plaintiffs' motion [D.E. 22] lacks merit and is DENIED.
Nothing in this order or the court's order of August 18,2015, prohibits plaintiffs from filing a motion to amend their complaint. If plaintiffs file such a motion, the court will determine whether any proposed amendment complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED.
