United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
TED J. OWEN, Plaintiff,
DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
Reidinger, Jr., United States District Judge
MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff's
Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 27].
Plaintiff commenced this action on December 29, 2016, by
filing a Complaint in the General Court of Justice, Superior
Court Division, for Transylvania County, North Carolina. In
his Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts claims of products
liability and negligence against the Defendant Dr.
Reddy's Laboratories based on injuries he allegedly
suffered after using the Defendant's pharmaceutical
product. [Doc. 1 at 11-15].
case was removed to this Court on February 1, 2017. [Doc. 1].
On March 1, 2017, the Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings. [Doc. 10]. In its Motion, the Defendant
argued that the Plaintiff's Complaint failed to state a
claim for relief and that the Plaintiff's claim involving
generic pharmaceutical products is preempted by federal law.
[Id.]. The Plaintiff opposed that motion. [Doc. 13].
December 13, 2017, the Honorable Dennis L. Howell, United
States Magistrate Judge, issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation recommending that the Defendant's Motion
should be granted and that the Plaintiff's Complaint
should be dismissed. [Doc. 19]. On December 27, 2017, the
Plaintiff filed a pleading seeking leave to file an amended
complaint and referencing a death in his family. [Doc. 20].
On January 8, 2018, this Court denied the Plaintiff's
request to amend his Complaint but granted the Plaintiff
until January 26, 2018, to file objections to the Memorandum
and Recommendation. [Doc. 22].
January 12, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a pleading entitled
“Addendum Defective Product Liability Claim.”
[Doc. 23]. The Court order this pleading to be stricken on
January 22, 2018, because it appeared to be an attempt to
amend the Complaint in direct contravention of the
Court's prior Order. [Doc. 24]. The Plaintiff took no
further action that was allowed by the Court within the
extension of time the Plaintiff had been granted. Thus, the
Plaintiff lodged no objection to the Memorandum and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Therefore, on
February 2, 2018, the Court accepted Judge Howell's
Memorandum and Recommendation and dismissed this case with
prejudice. [Doc. 25]. On March 5, 2018, the Plaintiff filed
the present Motion for Reconsideration. [Doc. 27].
60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the
Court “[o]n motion and just terms [to] relieve a party
or [his] legal representative from a final judgment, order,
or proceeding” for any of the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it ...