Serpik v. Manning

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

ROMAN VLADIMIROVICH ) SERPIK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. CIV-23-1093-R ) v. ) ) V. HARO, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “(Motion) Declaration to Vacate or Reconsider” [Doc. No. 58] the Court’s order of August 22, 2025 denying him leave to file an amended complaint. To the extent Plaintiff’s motion re-urges his arguments regarding recusal, the arguments are rejected for the same reasons previously stated in the Court’s order of August 22, 2025. To the extent the motion argues that the Court did not perform a de novo review, the issue presented involved a non-dispositive pretrial matter that did not require de novo review. See Franke v. ARUP Lab'ys, Inc., 390 F. App'x 822, 828 (10th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff’s remaining arguments are largely irrelevant to issue at hand – whether he should be given yet another opportunity to amend his complaint. Certainly, nothing in Plaintiff’s motion points to an intervening change in the controlling law, previously unavailable evidence, clear error or manifest injustice that might warrant reconsideration of the prior order. See Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s motion provides no basis for reconsidering the Court’s prior order and the motion is therefore DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18 day of September, 2025

DAVID L. RUSSELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE