Opinion
07-cv-286-bbc.
June 25, 2008
ORDER
Plaintiff Michael Hill has filed a second motion for reconsideration regarding the dismissal of his case. In it, he argues that the case should be re-opened under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) because he has discovered new evidence. However, the "evidence" plaintiff points to is just an alternative legal argument. For the reasons discussed in my June 11, 2008 order, any motion to reconsider based on a new legal theory must be denied as untimely.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Michael Hill's second motion for reconsideration, dkt. #19, is DENIED.