ORDERAND REASONS

KURT D. ENGELHARDT, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is pro se Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 34), seeking reconsideration of the Court's ruling granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 33). Defendant filed an opposition to the Motion (Rec. Doc. 35). For the reasons stated herein, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is hereby DENIED.

Given that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was unopposed and appeared meritorious, the Court granted the motion on March 16, 2018, dismissing the case with prejudice. Although, the Motion for Reconsideration appears timely, Plaintiff failed to attach an opposition memorandum to the original motion as required by this Court's March 16, 2018 Order. The Court is aware that Plaintiff is not presently represented by an attorney in this matter. The absence of counsel, however, does not exempt Plaintiff from complying with the Court's orders. Even if Plaintiff failed to familiarize himself with the Local Rules, which are published on the Court's website, he received notice of the March 14, 2018F submission date, but failed to file an opposition or request an extension of time to file an opposition prior to that date. Further, Plaintiff was mailed notice of his failure to timely file an opposition prior to the Court's Dismissal Order (See Rec. Doc. 32).

Moreover, the single sentence in the present motion that can be construed as an opposition to the original motion is devoid of facts, evidence, or affidavits, and is wholly insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Accordingly, finding that reconsideration is not warranted, the Motion is DENIED. Under these particular circumstances, Defendant's request for costs and attorney's fees isDENIED.