# Hall v. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services

> District Court, E.D. North Carolina · July 10, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10653407

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** July 10, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10653407

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:24-CV-120-D

ERIC KENDALL HALL,
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
Defendant.

On June 6, 2024, the court granted North Carolina Department of Health and Human
Services’s (“NC DHHS” or “defendant”) motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction

[D.E. 18, 19]. On June 13, 2024, Eric Kendall Hall (“Hall” or “plaintiff’) moved for relief from
judgment or order [D.E. 20]. On July 3, 2024, NC DHHS responded in opposition [D.E. 21]. On
10, 2024, Hall replied [D.E. 22].
Although Hall cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, the court has considered Hall’s
motion for reconsideration under the governing standard. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); TFWS, Inc.
v. Franchot, 572 F.3d 186, 194 (4th Cir. 2009); 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).
There was no intervening change in controlling law or new evidence, and Hall has not presented
any arguments warranting reconsideration. Thus, the court denies the motion.
Alternatively, Hall’s motion also fails to meet Rule 60(b)’s threshold requirements and is
denied 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. 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).
In sum, the court DENIES plaintiff's motion for reconsideration [D.E. 20].
SO ORDERED. This io day of July, 2024.

= Nove
J S C. DEVER III
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10653407. Public record. Not legal advice.