Hall v. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services

E.D. North Carolina

Hall v. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina

DecidedJuly 10, 2024

Docket5:24-cv-00120

StatusUnknown

This text of Hall v. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (Hall v. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services) 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

Hall v. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, (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-120-D

ERIC KENDALL HALL, Plaintiff, v. ORDER NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ) Defendant.

On June 6, 2024, the court granted North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services’s (“NC DHHS” or “defendant”) motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction

[D.E. 18, 19]. On June 13, 2024, Eric Kendall Hall (“Hall” or “plaintiff’) moved for relief from judgment or order [D.E. 20]. On July 3, 2024, NC DHHS responded in opposition [D.E. 21]. On 10, 2024, Hall replied [D.E. 22]. Although Hall cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, the court has considered Hall’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’l 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 Hall has not presented any arguments warranting reconsideration. Thus, the court denies the motion. Alternatively, Hall’s motion also fails to meet Rule 60(b)’s threshold requirements and is denied 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’1 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. 20]. SO ORDERED. This io day of July, 2024.

= Nove J S C. 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-120-D

ERIC KENDALL HALL, Plaintiff, v. ORDER NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ) Defendant.

On June 6, 2024, the court granted North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services’s (“NC DHHS” or “defendant”) motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction

[D.E. 18, 19]. On June 13, 2024, Eric Kendall Hall (“Hall” or “plaintiff’) moved for relief from judgment or order [D.E. 20]. On July 3, 2024, NC DHHS responded in opposition [D.E. 21]. On 10, 2024, Hall replied [D.E. 22]. Although Hall cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, the court has considered Hall’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’l 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 Hall has not presented any arguments warranting reconsideration. Thus, the court denies the motion. Alternatively, Hall’s motion also fails to meet Rule 60(b)’s threshold requirements and is denied 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’1 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. 20]. SO ORDERED. This io day of July, 2024.

= Nove J S C. DEVER III United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hall v. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-north-carolina-department-of-health-and-human-services-nced-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack