Honeycutt v. Safeway, Inc.

Full title: TYRONE A. HONEYCUTT, LONNIE L. HARRIS, and SEAN MURRAY, Plaintiffs, v…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Jun 1, 2007

Civil Action No. 04-cv-00423-WYD-MJW (D. Colo. Jun. 1, 2007)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 04-cv-00423-WYD-MJW.

June 1, 2007

ORDER

WILEY DANIEL, District Judge

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Sean Murray's motion entitled "Motion to Respond for All Parties Concerning Dismissal Papers" (filed May 30, 2007). The motion asks the Court to reconsider its ruling granting Defendant Safeway's motion for summary judgment as to Murray. Plaintiff Murray also seeks an order setting a settlement conference between Murray and Safeway.

I deny Sean Murray's motion. Plaintiff Murray has not set forth grounds that would warrant reconsideration of the Court's Order of February 15, 2007, that granted summary judgment as to Murray. "To succeed in a motion to reconsider, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.'" Nat. Business Brokers, Ltd. v. Jim Williamson Productions, Inc., 115 F. Supp. 2d 1250, 1255 (D. Colo. 2000) (quotation omitted), aff'd, No. 00-1411, 16 Fed. Appx. 959 (10th Cir. 2001). "`A motion to reconsider . . . should be denied unless it clearly demonstrates manifest error of law or fact or presents newly discovered evidence.'" Id. (quotation and internal quotation marks omitted).

In this case, Plaintiff Murray has not set forth any newly discovered evidence or articulated any manifest error of law by the Court in its ruling. Lack of understanding and/or ignorance by a pro se plaintiff does not warrant relief in this instance, as a pro se plaintiff is required to allege sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based. As stated in the Order that granted summary judgment, Plaintiff Murray did not allege facts or present admissible evidence that would support a finding that Safeway terminated his employment for any other reason than the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason that Safeway articulated. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted as to Plaintiff Murray.

In conclusion, it is

ORDERED that pro se Plaintiff Sean Murray's "Motion to Respond for All Parties Concerning Dismissal Papers (filed May 30, 2007) is DENIED.