The opinion
United States District Court
District of Massachusetts
___________________________________
)
Samuel Bourne, individually and as )
Trustee of Lot 31 Realty Trust, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No.
v. ) 20-10898-NMG
)
Roy E. Gardner, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
___________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
GORTON, J.
This case arises from a property dispute between Samuel
Bourne (“Bourne” or “plaintiff”) and Roy E. Gardner (“Gardner”),
Dorothy L. Simpson (“Simpson”) and the Town of East Bridgewater
(“Town,” collectively “defendants”).
Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint in June,
2020. That motion was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge M. Page Kelley for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on
the merits and, in December, 2020, she entered a R&R
recommending that this Court allow the motion to dismiss.
On February 2, 2021, after consideration of plaintiff’s
objection, this Court accepted and adopted the R&R. Pending
- 1 -
before the Court is Bourne’s motion for reconsideration of that
order.
I. Motion for Reconsideration
The First Circuit Court of Appeals (“First Circuit”) has
instructed that motions for reconsideration are appropriate only
if the moving party presents newly discovered evidence, if
there has been an intervening change in the law, or if the
movant can demonstrate that the original decision was based
on a manifest error of law or was clearly unjust.
United States v. Allen, 573 F.3d 42, 53 (1st Cir. 2009). Such a
motion is “normally not a promising vehicle” for rearguing
theories already advanced “[u]nless the court has misapprehended
some material fact or point of law.” Palmer v. Champion
Mortgage, 465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006).
Here, plaintiff has not met the standard set forth in the
Allen decision cited above. He instead contends that a recent
decision by the United States Supreme Court indicates that
defendants are not protected by the doctrine of qualified
immunity. In the R&R accepted and adopted by this Court in
February, 2021, the magistrate judge specifically declined to
address the qualified immunity arguments made by defendants
because both the doctrine of res judicata and the prior-pending-
action doctrine were dispositive of all of plaintiff’s claims.
Qualified immunity is, therefore, irrelevant and plaintiff has
- 2 -
offered no basis upon which this Court should otherwise
reconsider its prior order.
The Court will not order plaintiff to pay the fees and
costs associated with defendants’ opposition to the instant
motion. Bourne should stand forewarned, however, that sanctions
will be imposed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 if he files
repetitive or frivolous motions or lawsuits in the future.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the motion of plaintiff for
reconsideration of this Court’s order dated February 2, 2021
(Docket No. 23) is DENIED.
So ordered.
/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge
Dated April 9, 2021
- 3 -