United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
March 24, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
GERALD DAMONE HOPPER, Defendant.
MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the court on defendant's second Motion to Reconsider. Before reaching the merits of defendant's motion, the court must first determine whether the defendant has presented a proper motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) or whether he has merely presented a "successive application in [59(e)'s] clothing." United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir.2003) (analyzing motion filed under Rule 60(b)) (quoting Lazo v. United States, 314 F.3d 571, 573 (11th Cir.2002) ( per curiam )). In the present case, the defendant's motion to reconsider does not seek to remedy some defect in this court's consideration of his request, but rather seeks to re-argue the grounds raised in his original request concerning documents. Accordingly, the court concludes that defendant's motion to reconsider is a second request for reconsideration of this court's Order of March 7, 2014, in as many weeks, making it a repetitive and vexatious pleading without a Rule 59(e) basis.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (#213) is DENIED.