316 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2014), C. A. 11-2215 (RWR), Walsh v. Hagee

Docket Nº:Civil Action 11-2215 (RWR)
Citation:316 F.R.D. 1
Opinion Judge:RICHARD W. ROBERTS, Chief United States Judge.
Party Name:RORY WALSH, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL HAGEE, et al., Defendants
Attorney:RORY M. WALSH, Natural Guardian of S.J.W., a minor, Plaintiff, Pro se, York, PA. For MICHAEL W. HAGEE, JAMES R. CLAPPER, JR., Director of National Intelligence, CHRIS CONNER, District Judge, ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Department of Veterans Affairs, LILLIE Y. JACKSON, EILEEN KOSTIC, FRANK APICELLA, Specia...
Case Date:March 04, 2014
Court:United States District Court, Federal Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1

316 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2014)

RORY WALSH, Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL HAGEE, et al., Defendants

Civil Action No. 11-2215 (RWR)

United States District Court, D. Columbia

March 4, 2014

RORY M. WALSH, Natural Guardian of S.J.W., a minor, Plaintiff, Pro se, York, PA.

For MICHAEL W. HAGEE, JAMES R. CLAPPER, JR., Director of National Intelligence, CHRIS CONNER, District Judge, ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Department of Veterans Affairs, LILLIE Y. JACKSON, EILEEN KOSTIC, FRANK APICELLA, Special Agent, FBI, JOSEPH V. DE SANTI, Dr., FRANCES S. POLETO, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants: John G. Interrante, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, DC.

For KEITH BERGER, U.S. Marshal CSO, Defendant: Robert M. Gittins, LEAD ATTORNEY, LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM J. HICKEY, Rockville, MD.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

RICHARD W. ROBERTS, Chief United States Judge.

Pro se plaintiff Rory M. Walsh moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 for reconsideration of the December 4, 2013 memorandum opinion and order denying Walsh's motion for reconsideration of the October 26, 2012 memorandum opinion and order, which granted the defendants' motions to dismiss. Walsh argues that there is a change in controlling law and reasserts legal arguments previously raised and rejected. Because Walsh has not established that he is entitled to relief from the judgment under Rule 59, his motion will be denied.

The relevant facts are described in two earlier opinions. See Walsh v. Hagee, 900 F.Supp.2d 51 (D.D.C. 2012), aff'd, No. 12-5367, 2013 WL 1729762 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 10, 2013) (" Walsh I" ); Walsh v. Hagee, 10 F.Supp.3d 15, 2013 WL 6342093 (D.D.C. Dec. 4. 2013) (" Walsh II" ).

Walsh's motion for reconsideration of the October 26, 2012 memorandum opinion and order was denied because Walsh failed to establish that he was entitled to relief under Rule 60. Walsh II, 10 F.Supp.3d 15, 2013 WL 6342093, at *1. For example, the opinion found that Walsh failed to present dispositive new evidence, that Walsh merely reiterated arguments he had already presented, and that there were no extraordinary circumstances that warranted...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP