January 2, 2014
OLUJIMI AWABH BLAKENEY, Plaintiff,
SUSAN KARR, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Olujimi Awabh Blakeney's ("Blakeney") motion for reconsideration of this Court's order adopting the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the Honorable Karen L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 47). Dkt. 54.
I. PROCEDURAL & FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On August 6, 2013, Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment which was noted for September 6, 2013. Dkt. 35. On August 23, 2013, Blakeney filed a Motion for Extension of Time until September 23, 2013 to respond. Dkt. 38. On September 4, 2013, Blakeney's request was granted. Dkt. 39. On September 23, 2013, Blakeney filed a second motion for extension of time. Dkt. 40. On October 4, 2013, by separate order, Magistrate Judge Karen Strombom, denied Blakeney's second motion to extend his deadline to respond to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 46. On September 23, 2013, Blakeney filed motions to join additional claims (Dkt. 42) and to join additional defendants (Dkt. 43).
On October 4, 2013, Judge Strombom issued an R&R granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment because Blakeney failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Dkt. 47. The Court did not reach Defendant' alternative substantive grounds for dismissal, finding that once it determined that a suit filed by a prisoner must be dismissed for failure to exhaust, a district court lacks discretion to resolve those claims on the merits. Accordingly, Blakeney's motions to join claims and parties (Dkts. 42 and 43) were denied as moot.
On October 21, 2013, Blakeney filed objections to Judge Strombom's R&R. Dkt. 48. On the same day, he also filed a response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment and a cross-motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 49. On October 24, 2013, Defendants filed a reply to Blakeney's objections and a motion to strike his response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 50.
On November 13, 2013, the Court adopted Judge Strombom's R&R. Dkt. 52. On November 25, 2013, Blakeney filed the instant motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 54.
Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule CR 7(h), which provides as follows:
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.
Local Rule CR 7(h)(1).
Blakeney argues that the Court erred in finding that he offered no reason which would sufficiently justify his delinquent response and motion. Dkt. 54 at 1-2. He states that he offered reasons in his second motion for extension of time while the case was pending before Judge Strombom. Dkt. 54 at 1-2. Although Blakeney did seek a second extension of time on the basis that he allegedly had limited access to the library and it was burdensome to obtain writing materials, he did not supply any further reasoning to this Court as to why he was he submitted a delinquent response and thus the Court found Judge Strombom's had not abused her discretion in denying Blakeney's second motion for continuance.
Moreover, Judge Strombom's decision to dismiss the case was based on Blakeney's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Based on a review of the record, this Court found that Judge Strombom's conclusion that Blakeney failed to exhaust his administrative remedies was correct. Dkt. 52 at 3. Thus, the Court found she properly dismissed his claims without prejudice. Id. Neither Blakeney's objections to his R&R, nor his motion for reconsideration properly challenged that basis for dismissing his case.
Blakeney has not satisfied the burden necessary to grant his motion for reconsideration, as he has failed to show the Court committed a manifest error of law, and he has not provided new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.
Therefore, it is hereby ordered that Blakeney's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 54) is DENIED.