Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lopez v. Correctional Medical Services

September 27, 2010

JOSE LOPEZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hillman, District Judge

OPINION

This matter has come before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's June 30, 2009 Opinion granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motions for summary judgment.

Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion, arguing that it is untimely filed, and, consequently, cannot be considered. Defendants also argue that even if Plaintiff's motion is considered, Plaintiff has not articulated a proper basis for reconsideration. For the reasons expressed below, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied.

A. Background

This case involves the claims of Plaintiff, Jose Lopez ("Lopez"), who alleges that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Among other claims, Lopez contends that Defendants failed to abide by FBOP guidelines for screening prisoners for hepatitis C ("HCV"), failed to review or receive medical records from St. Francis Hospital that indicated "Hepatitis C reactive", and failed to discharge contractual obligations that required a medical evaluation or review of medical records upon a prisoner's transfer.

Previously, Defendants moved for summary judgment. In the Court's June 30, 2009 Opinion, we granted the motions for summary judgment made by Defendants Devon Brown, Charles Leone, Warden, Southern State Correctional Facility, and Warden, New Jersey State Prison (the "State Defendants") and Correctional Medical Services, Inc., Louis Tripoli, William Andrade, M.D., James J. Neal, M.D., James Rumna, R.N., Rock Welch, and Abu Ahsan, M.D. (the "CMS Defendants") and granted in part and denied in part Defendant St. Francis Hospital's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims. Lopez seek reconsideration of the Court's decision to grant summary judgment.

B. Standard for Motion for Reconsideration

Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) governs a motion for reconsideration. It provides, in pertinent part, that "[a] motion for reconsideration shall be served and filed within 10 business days after the entry of the order or judgment on the original motion by the Judge or Magistrate Judge. A brief setting forth concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge has overlooked shall be filed with the Notice of Motion."

The purpose of a motion for reconsideration "is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence," Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999), and a judgment may only be altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows:

(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Id. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and should only be granted "sparingly." P. Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Cendant Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 349, 352-53 (D.N.J. 2001).

A motion for reconsideration may not be used to re-litigate old matters or argue new matters that could have been raised before the original decision was reached. Id. at 352. Mere disagreement with the Court will not suffice to show that the Court overlooked relevant facts or controlling law, United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999), and should be dealt with through the normal appellate process.

S.C. ex rel. C.C. v. Deptford Twp Bd. of Educ., 248 F. Supp. 2d 368, 381 (D.N.J. 2003).

C. Analysis

Lopez's motion for reconsideration is untimely. Untimeliness alone may constitute grounds for denial of a motion for reconsideration. See United States ex rel. Malloy v. Telephonics Corp., 68 Fed. Appx. 270, 274 n. 6 (3d Cir. 2003). As discussed supra, per Local Rule 7.1(i), a motion for reconsideration must be filed within 10 business days after ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.