Allen v. MetLife

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