Opinion

Felton v. Albemarle Regional Health Services

Court
District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Filed
Jun 7, 2021
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.6%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

NORTHERN DIVISION

No. 2:20-CV-14-D □

ANGELA FELTON )

and ARTHUR FELTON, )

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

ALBEMARLE REGIONAL

HEALTH SERVICES, et al., )

Defendants.

On May 6, 2020, this court dismissed Angela Felton and Arthur Felton’s (“Feltons” or

“plaintiffs”) claims and closed the case. See [D.E. 34]. On July 27, 2020, the Feltons moved to

correct clerical errors. See [D.E. 45]. The same day, the Feltons moved to compel Rule 26(a)

disclosures. See [D.E. 46]. On August 31, 2020, United States Magistrate Judge Robert T.

Numbers, II denied as futile the Feltons’s motion to amend their complaint. See [D.E. 49]. On

October 5, November 10, and November 30, 2020, the Feltons moved to provide additional

information to the court. See [D.E. 51, 52, 53]. On December 29, 2020, this court denied the

Feltons’s motion to amend, and denied the Feltons’s remaining motions as baseless [D.E. 54]. The

Feltons did not appeal. On April 21, 2021, the Feltons filed a motion for relief [D.E. 55].

To the extent the Feltons seek reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, the

motion is untimely, See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); cf. 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’] Fire Ins. Co.,

148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998); Hughes v. Bedsole, 48 F.3d 1376, 1382 (4th Cir. 1995).

To the extent the Feltons seek relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the court

denies the motion as baseless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 500-01

& n.3 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc); Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 412 n.12 (4th Cir.

2010); Nat’l 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McHugh, 675 F. App’x 272, 273 (4th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (unpublished).

The court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion for relief [D.E. 55] as baseless. The case remains

closed.

SO ORDERED. This _1_ day of June 2021.

United States District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.