FURROW v. WELLS et al, No. 2:2010cv00063 - Document 34 (S.D. Ind. 2011)
Court Description: ENTRY - Plaintiff's 25 Motion for Reconsideration is denied insofar as plaintiff seeks a different ruling concerning claims which were dismissed as legally insufficient. Motion (dkt 25) is also denied insofar as plaintiff seeks the entry of a partial final judgment as to claims which were dismissed as legally insufficient. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 1/20/2011. (served by US mail) (NKD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FURROW v. WELLS et al Doc. 34 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA BUFORD O’NEAL FURROW, JR., Plaintiff, vs. S. WELLS (L.D.H.), Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:10-cv-63-WTL-DML ENTRY “A motion to reconsider asks that a decision be reexamined in light of additional legal arguments, a change of law, or an argument that was overlooked earlier . . . .” Patel v. Gonzales 442 F.3d 1011, 1015-16 (7th Cir. 2006). There was no procedural or substantive error in the dismissal of certain claims in the screening entry of November 16, 2010. The screening itself was required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the plaintiff, Mr. Burrows, is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h). See Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). The plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (dkt 25) is therefore denied insofar as the plaintiff seeks a different ruling concerning the claims which were dismissed as legally insufficient. The motion (dkt 25) is also denied insofar as the plaintiff seeks the entry of a partial final judgment as to the claims which were dismissed as legally insufficient. This latter ruling rests on the fact that the action Mr. Burrows seeks through the entry of partial final judgment at this time would undermine the policy of Rule 54(b) of seeking to avoid multiple, piecemeal appeals. See Stockman's Water Co., LLC v. Vaca Partners, L.P., 425 F.3d 1263, 1265 (10th Cir. 2005). Especially pertinent here is the "'historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals.'" Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980) (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 438 (1956)). IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 01/20/2011 _______________________________ Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana Dockets.Justia.com Distribution: Buford O'Neal Furrow Jr. No. 34225-048 Terre Haute - USP Inmate Mail/Parcels P.O. Box 33 Terre Haute, IN 47808 Tom.kieper@usdoj.gov
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
