Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Parker v. Curtis Wright Corp.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

April 13, 2018

ANTHONY PARKER, Plaintiff,
v.
CURTIS WRIGHT CORPORATION, Defendant.

          ORDER

          Max O. Cogburn Jr. United States District Judge

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on a letter (#26) sent to Chambers by plaintiff. The Court has read the letter and determined that it is a request for reconsideration of the Court's earlier Order (#21) dismissing the action upon defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

         The Court notes that such motion comes immediately after plaintiff filed his Notice of Appeal (#23) from this Court's Order (#21) and Judgment (#22). Traditionally, the filing of an appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction. However, Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides district court with the ability to address certain motions filed during the pendency of an appeal. In particular, Rule 62.1(a) provides, as follows:

(a) Relief Pending Appeal. If a timely motion is made for relief that the court lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the court may:
(1) defer considering the motion;
(2) deny the motion; or
(3) state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 62.1. Thus, under Rule 62.1, this Court is limited to either denying the motion or providing the appellate court with notice that it intended to grant the motion or that the motion raised an issue requiring additional consideration.

         Rule 59(e) governs motions to amend and Rule 60 provides for relief from judgment and orders based on clerical error, oversight, and mistakes. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60; c.f. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. The Court has fully considered plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider and his exhibits. For cause, plaintiff states:

After reviewing your prestigious background felt you might be empathic to legal wrongs. Your recent decision dated April 5, 2017, did not consider physical evidence submitted. The physical evidence included the Defendants' EEOC position statement with Defendants evidence.
Moreover, Randstad the email sender, denies involvement with fabricated libelous statement. Additionally, Defendants witness denies sexual harassment occurred.
The law requires proving my case by a preponderance of the evidence in a civil matter. However, your decision makes no reference to evidence submitted. Stevie Wonder can see the email is copied and pasted together.
My dilemma started from protesting the treatment of a young black man at Curtiss Wright Corporation. Young black males encounter an unequal economic divide in the work place. Without protesting the disparaging treatment in the work place, young black male feel hopeless. Yes, I protested ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.