Filed: Mar. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III , District Judge . On April 25, 2018, the court dismissed Sonia I. Wriglesworth's ("Wriglesworth") complaint without prejudice [D.E. 18] and closed the case. See [D.E. 19]. On June 22, 2018, Wriglesworth requested leave to file an amended complaint [D.E. 20]. On July 30, 2018, the court construed her filing as a motion for reconsideration and denied it under the applicable standard [D.E. 21]. On August 9, 2018, Wriglesworth moved for reconsideration of that denia
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III , District Judge . On April 25, 2018, the court dismissed Sonia I. Wriglesworth's ("Wriglesworth") complaint without prejudice [D.E. 18] and closed the case. See [D.E. 19]. On June 22, 2018, Wriglesworth requested leave to file an amended complaint [D.E. 20]. On July 30, 2018, the court construed her filing as a motion for reconsideration and denied it under the applicable standard [D.E. 21]. On August 9, 2018, Wriglesworth moved for reconsideration of that denial..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. DEVER, III, District Judge.
On April 25, 2018, the court dismissed Sonia I. Wriglesworth's ("Wriglesworth") complaint without prejudice [D.E. 18] and closed the case. See [D.E. 19]. On June 22, 2018, Wriglesworth requested leave to file an amended complaint [D.E. 20]. On July 30, 2018, the court construed her filing as a motion for reconsideration and denied it under the applicable standard [D.E. 21]. On August 9, 2018, Wriglesworth moved for reconsideration of that denial [D.E. 22].1
The court has considered Wriglesworth's motion for reconsideration under the governing standard. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Zinkand v. Brown, 478 F.3d 634, 637 (4th Cir. 2007); Bogart v. Chapell, 396 F.3d 548, 555 (4th Cir. 2005); Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 653 (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). Wriglesworth's motion lacks merit. Because the court had dismissed Wriglesworth's complaint, Wriglesworth could not amend that complaint. See Calvazy Christian Ctr. v. Calvary of Fredericksburg, 710 F.3d 536, 539 (4th Cir. 2013) ("We have repeatedly held that a motion to amend filed after a judgment of dismissal has been entered cannot be considered until the judgment is vacated."); Katyle v. Penn Nat'l Gaming. Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 470-71 (4th Cir. 2011); Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 427-28 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc). Accordingly, because Wriglesworth is a prose litigant, the court construed Wriglesworth's first motion as a motion for reconsideration. Cf. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).
Even construing Wriglesworth's filing of June 22, 2018, as a motion for leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), Wriglesworth's proposed complaint would be futile. The proposed amended complaint, like Wriglesworth's original complaint, fails to state a plausible claim. See [D.E. 18]; Katyle, 637 F.3d at470-71; Hart v. Hanover cty. Sch. Bd., 495 F. App'x 314, 315-16 (4th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision); cf. Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 304 n.5 (4th Cir. 2008) (noting that Erickson does not "undermine [the] requirement that a pleading contain more than labels and conclusions" (quotation omitted)). Thus, Wriglesworth's motion for reconsideration lacks merit.
In sum, the court DENIES Wriglesworth's motion for reconsideration [D.E. 22]. The case remains closed.
SO ORDERED.
