Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-cv-00658-WDM-KMT.
February 6, 2008
ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Edward C. Herlik's "Motion to Reconsider 18th January 2008 Order Regarding Scope of Employment Decision" ("Motion" [Doc. No. 60, filed January 31, 2008).
Plaintiff cites no authority for the court to reconsider its previous ruling. However, the court notes that Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) authorizes reconsideration relief based on certain enumerated circumstances. A party's dissatisfaction with a ruling is not one of those circumstances. Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 990 (8th Cir. 1999) (Rule 60(b) "is not a vehicle for simple reargument on the merits.") Thus, a "motion to reconsider" pursuant to Rule 60(b) is properly denied, for example, where the movant "d[oes] nothing more than reargue, somewhat more fully, the merits of their claim." Id.
Plaintiff's Motion argues that the court misunderstood and/or misapplied the law, and asserts more extensive argument. "Such arguments and tactics, however, cannot support Rule 60(b) relief." Ptasynski v. CO2 Claims Coalition, 2007 WL 162742, *1 (D. Colo., 2007) (unpublished, Miller, J.); Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243-44 (10th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff Edward C. Herlik's "Motion to Reconsider 18th January 2008 Order Regarding Scope of Employment Decision" ("Motion" [Doc. No. 60, filed January 31, 2008) is DENIED.