Mccauley , Stephen v. Univesity of The Virgin Islands
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN STEPHEN McCAULEY, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, SEAN GEORGES in his individual and official capacities, DR. LAVERNE RAGSTER, in her individual and official capacities, and JON and/or JANE DOES I through X, Defendants. ______________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2005-188 ATTORNEYS: Darren J. Baptiste, Esq. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For the plaintiff, Samuel H. Hall, Esq. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For the defendants. ORDER GÓMEZ, C.J. Before the Court is the motion of Stephen McCauley (“McCauley”) for reconsideration of this Court’s April 24, 2009, Order denying his petition for a temporary restraining order enjoining the University of the Virgin Islands, Sean Georges, in his individual and official capacities, Dr. Laverne Ragster, in her individual and official capacities, and Jon and/or Jane Does Case: 3:05-cv-00188-CVG-GWB Document #: 63 Filed: 04/30/09 Page 1 of 3 McCauley v Univ. of the V.I., et al. Civil No. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-3_05-cv-00188/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_05-cv-00188-2.pdf
SHA-256 c2937bbde9e637b45dff8e891f400e24606774c763fb9ef9c99b0a81bfb96369
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-c2937bbde9e6
Document text
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN STEPHEN McCAULEY, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, SEAN GEORGES in his individual and official capacities, DR. LAVERNE RAGSTER, in her individual and official capacities, and JON and/or JANE DOES I through X, Defendants. ______________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2005-188 ATTORNEYS: Darren J. Baptiste, Esq. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For the plaintiff, Samuel H. Hall, Esq. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For the defendants. ORDER GÓMEZ, C.J. Before the Court is the motion of Stephen McCauley (“McCauley”) for reconsideration of this Court’s April 24, 2009, Order denying his petition for a temporary restraining order enjoining the University of the Virgin Islands, Sean Georges, in his individual and official capacities, Dr. Laverne Ragster, in her individual and official capacities, and Jon and/or Jane Does Case: 3:05-cv-00188-CVG-GWB Document #: 63 Filed: 04/30/09 Page 1 of 3 McCauley v Univ. of the V.I., et al. Civil No. 2005-188 Order I through X (collectively, the “Defendants”) from conducting any proceedings based on the University’s Code of Student Conduct, or from reconvening any proceedings based thereon, during the pendency of the above captioned matter. Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.3 (“Local Rule 7.3") provides: A party may file a motion asking the court to reconsider its order or decision. . . . A motion to reconsider shall be based on: 1. Intervening change in controlling law; 2. Availability of new evidence, or; 3. The need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice LRCi 7.3 (2008). The purpose of a motion for reconsideration “is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Such motions are not substitutes for appeals, and are not to be used as “a vehicle for registering disagreement with the court’s initial decision, for rearguing matters already addressed by the court, or for raising arguments that could have been raised before but were not.” Bostic v. AT&T of the V.I., 312 F. Supp. 2d 731, 733 (D.V.I. 2004). Here, McCauley argues that reconsideration is appropriate in order to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. However, McCauley has failed to point to any error in the April Case: 3:05-cv-00188-CVG-GWB Document #: 63 Filed: 04/30/09 Page 2 of 3 McCauley v Univ. of the V.I., et al. Civil No. 2005-188 Order 24, 2009, Order. McCauley has also failed to set forth any facts that would support the inference of manifest injustice. Rather, McCauley merely restates the arguments set forth in his initial petition for a temporary restraining order. Mere disagreement with the Court’s conclusions, however, is not a valid basis for a motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. S\ CURTIS V. GÓMEZ Chief Judge Case: 3:05-cv-00188-CVG-GWB Document #: 63 Filed: 04/30/09 Page 3 of 3