The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, District Judge:
The matter before the Court is Plaintiff's motion requesting the Court reconsider its dismissal of this case (Doc. 17). On 12/27/2011, this Court issued a Notice of Impending Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, informing Plaintiff that as of December 27, 2011, Plaintiff had failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) (Doc. 9). Accordingly, the Court informed Plaintiff that this action would be dismissed for failure to properly prosecute unless Plaintiff took action to effectuate service of process within twenty-one days (Doc. 9). On January 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion asking this Court to order that service of process be completed by the U.S. Marshal Service (Doc. 10), which this Court denied (Doc. 14). Yet, this Court gave Plaintiff one more extension to complete service process (Doc. 14).
Plaintiff did not effectuate service of process and thus failed to comply with this Court's Orders (Docs. 9 & 14) and with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On February 21, 2012, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice. Plaintiff filed the present motion for reconsideration on March 6, 2012.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically address motions to "reconsider." The Seventh Circuit has held, however, that a motion challenging the merits of a district court order will automatically be considered as having been filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g. Mares v. Busby, 34 F.3d 533, 535 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v. Deutsch, 981 F.2d 299, 300 (7th Cir. 1992).
Plaintiff cites no legal basis for his motion to reconsider. Thus, the Court construes Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which provides relief from judgment or order for "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Upon review of the record, the Court remains persuaded that its dismissal of this action (Doc. 16) is correct. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 17) is DENIED.
G. PATRICK MURPHY United States District Judge
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...