The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:21-CV-174-D
KATHY R. ALLEN, and JAY K. ALLEN, )
Plaintiffs, .
v. ) ORDER
METLIFE, et al.,
Defendants.
On January 10, 2022, this court dismissed Kathy R. Allen and Jay K. Allen’s complaint
(collectively the “Allens” or “plaintiffs”) and closed the case. See [D.E. 51, 52]. On February 9,
2022, the Allens filed a motion for reconsideration. See [D.E. 53]. On March 2, 2022, defendant
L3Harris responded in opposition [D.E. 54]. □
The court has considered the Allens’ 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 □□□□
403 (4th Cir. 1998); Hughes v. Bedsole, 48 F.3d 1376, 1382 (4th Cir. 1995). The Allens have not
presented any arguments warranting reconsideration .
The Allens’ motion also fails to meet Rule 60(b)’s threshold requirements and is denied as
baseless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60); Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 500-01 & n.3 (4th Cir. 2011)
(en banc); Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 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).
The motion for reconsideration lacks [D.E. 53] merit and is DENIED. The case remains
_ Closed.
SO ORDERED. This @ day of April, 2022.
hs C. DEVER II
United States District Judge