The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:19-CV-129-D
RANDY DINGLE, )
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
BENJAMIN KHAN, et al.,
Defendants.
On March 16, 2020, the court dismissed Randy Dingle’s (“Dingle” or “plaintiff’) claims
[D.E. 137], and closed the case. See [D.E. 138]. On March 27, 2020, Dingle moved to recuse Judge
Gates from the case [D.E. 139]. No defendant responded. .
The court construes Dingle’s filing as a motion for reconsideration concerning this court’s
dismissal order and judgment of March 16, 2020. See [D.E. 137, 138]. The court has considered
Dingle’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); 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). The court denies the motion as baseless. See Belue
v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572-76 (4th Cir. 2011).
Alternatively, Dingle’s motion fails to meet Rule 60(b)’s threshold requirements and is
denied as baseless. See id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 500-01 & n.3
(4th Cir. 2011) (en bane); Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 412 n.12 (4th Cir.
2010); Nat’1 Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. Gray, 1 F.3d 262, 264 (4th Cir. 1993); cf. Luxama v.
McHugh, 675 F. App’x 272, 273 (4th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (unpublished). .
In sum, the court DENIES the motion for reconsideration [D.E. 139] as baseless. The case
remains closed.
SO ORDERED. This _4. day of May 2020.
A Nsven
J S C. DEVER II
United States District Judge