Brinson v. Walmart, Inc.

E.D. North Carolina

Brinson v. Walmart, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina

DecidedNovember 22, 2024

Docket5:24-cv-00079

StatusUnknown

This text of Brinson v. Walmart, Inc. (Brinson v. Walmart, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brinson v. Walmart, Inc., (E.D.N.C. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brinson v. Walmart, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brinson-v-walmart-inc-nced-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack