# Brinson v. Walmart, Inc.

> District Court, E.D. North Carolina · November 22, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10749327

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** November 22, 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/10749327

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:24-CV-79-D

CLINTON BRINSON, ) .
Plaintiff, }
v. ORDER
WALMART, INC.,
Defendant.

On February 9, 2024, Clinton Brinson (“Brinson” or “plaintiff’), appearing pro se, filed a
complaint [DE 1]. On July 25, 2024, defendant filed a motion to dismiss [D.E. 14] and a
memorandum in support [D.E. 15]. On August 30, 2024, plaintiff responded in opposition [D.E.
17]. On August 30, 2024, defendant replied [D.E. 19]. On September 25, 2024, the court granted
defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or, in the alternative, for summary
judgment [D.E. 20, 21]. On October 17, 2024, plaintiff moved for reconsideration [D.E. 23] and
filed a notice of appeal [D.E. 24]. On November 1, 2024, defendant responded in opposition to
the motion for reconsideration [D.E. 27].
The court has considered Brinson’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’] 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 Brinson has not presented any arguments warranting reconsideration. Thus,
the court denies the motion.

Alternatively, Brinson’s motion also fails to meet Rule 60(b)’s threshold requirements, and
the court denies it 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’l 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. 23].
SO ORDERED. This 22 day of November, 2024.

fe baver __
J SC. DEVER III
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10749327. Public record. Not legal advice.