Dingle v. Khan

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:19-CV-129-D RANDY DINGLE, ) Plaintiff, v. ORDER BENJAMIN KHAN, et al., Defendants.

On March 16, 2020, the court dismissed Randy Dingle’s (“Dingle” or “plaintiff’) claims [D.E. 137], and closed the case. See [D.E. 138]. On March 27, 2020, Dingle moved to recuse Judge Gates from the case [D.E. 139]. No defendant responded. . The court construes Dingle’s filing as a motion for reconsideration concerning this court’s dismissal order and judgment of March 16, 2020. See [D.E. 137, 138]. The court has considered Dingle’s 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 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998); Hughes v. Bedsole, 48 F.3d 1376, 1382 (4th Cir. 1995). The court denies the motion as baseless. See Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572-76 (4th Cir. 2011). Alternatively, Dingle’s motion fails to meet Rule 60(b)’s threshold requirements and is denied as baseless. See id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 500-01 & n.3 (4th Cir. 2011) (en bane); Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 412 n.12 (4th Cir. 2010); Nat’1 Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. Gray, 1 F.3d 262, 264 (4th Cir. 1993); cf. Luxama v. McHugh, 675 F. App’x 272, 273 (4th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (unpublished). .

In sum, the court DENIES the motion for reconsideration [D.E. 139] as baseless. The case remains closed. SO ORDERED. This _4. day of May 2020.

A Nsven J S C. DEVER II United States District Judge