Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cummings v. National Labor Relations Board

United States District Court, D. Maryland

October 19, 2016

ANNETTE CUMMINGS, Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Richard D. Bennett United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Annette Cummings (“Plaintiff” or “Cummings”) brought this pro se action to obtain judicial review of a decision by the General Counsel of Defendant National Labor Relations Board (“Defendant” or the “Board”)[1]. Via Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 28, 2016 (ECF Nos. 36 & 37), this Court dismissed this case with prejudice because this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to review prosecutorial decisions of the Board's General Counsel. See Cummings v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., No. RDB-16-0216, 2016 WL 3523573, at *4 (D. Md. June 28, 2016).

         Currently pending before this Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 38), Motion to Vacate and Re-Open Case (ECF No. 44), Second Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 45), and Motion and Supporting Memorandum to Stay Pending of the Court's [sic] Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal and Motion for an Immediate Administrative Stay and Motion to Recuse and Motion for Enlargement of Time Refers to [sic] Extension of Time to File Complaint (“Motion for Miscellaneous Relief”) (ECF No. 48)[2]. The parties' submissions have been reviewed, and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 38) is DENIED; Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate and Re-Open Case (ECF No. 44) is DENIED; Plaintiff's Second Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 45) is DENIED; and Plaintiff's Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (ECF No. 48) is also DENIED.

         BACKGROUND

         This Court accepts as true the facts alleged in the plaintiff's complaint. See Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388, 390 (4th Cir. 2011). A pro se litigant's complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the litigant can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). However, a plaintiff's status as pro se does not absolve him of the duty to plead adequately. See Stone v. Warfield, 184 F.R.D. 553, 555 (D. Md. 1999) (citing Anderson v. Univ. of Md. Sch. Of Law, 130 F.R.D. 616, 617 (D. Md. 1989), aff'd, 900 F.2d 249, 1990 WL 41120 (4th Cir. 1990)). The facts of this case were set forth fully in this Court's Memorandum Opinion of June 28, 2016. See Cummings, 2016 WL 3523573, at 2-3.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly recognize motions for “reconsideration.” Instead, Rule 59(e) authorizes a district court to alter, amend, or vacate a prior judgment, and Rule 60 provides for relief from judgment. As explained by this Court in Cross v. Fleet Reserve Ass'n Pension Plan, No. WDQ-05-0001, 2010 WL 3609530, at *2 (D. Md. Sept. 14, 2010):

A party may move to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e), or for relief from a judgment under Rule 60(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) & 60(b). A motion to alter or amend filed within 28 days of the judgment is analyzed under Rule 59(e); if the motion is filed later, Rule 60(b) controls. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 280 (4th Cir. 2008); In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1, 2-3 (4th Cir. 1992).

(footnote omitted). Here, Plaintiff has failed to indicate whether her motions, filed on July 7, 2016, August 26, 2016, and August 31, 2016, are brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) or 60(b). In light of the liberal construction afforded pro se pleadings, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), this Court will consider Plaintiff's arguments under both Rules 59(e) and 60(b).

         I. Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

         The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has repeatedly recognized that a judgment may be amended under Rule 59(e) in only three circumstances: (1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. See, e.g., Gagliano v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 547 F.3d 230, 241 n. 8 (4th Cir. 2008). Such motions do not authorize a “game of hopscotch, ” in which parties switch from one legal theory to another “like a bee in search of honey.” Cochran v. Quest Software, Inc., 328 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2003). In other words, a Rule 59(e) motion “may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to entry of judgment.” Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (quoting 11 Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, at 127-28 (2d ed.1995)). Where a party presents newly discovered evidence in support of its Rule 59(e) motion, it “must produce a legitimate justification for not presenting the evidence during the earlier proceeding.” Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “In general, reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

         II. Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

         To support a motion under Rule 60(b), the moving party must show “timeliness, a meritorious defense, a lack of unfair prejudice to the opposing party, and exceptional circumstances.” Hale v. Belton Assoc., Inc., 305 Fed. App'x. 987, 988 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Dowell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Auto. Ins. Co., 993 F.2d 46, 48 (4th Cir. 1993)). If these threshold requirements are met, the moving party must then show: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The moving party “must clearly establish the grounds therefore to the satisfaction of the district court, ” and those grounds “must be clearly substantiated by adequate proof.” In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1, 3 (4th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). “Rule ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.