govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-1_21-cv-20589-4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
 
ROBERT DEREK LURCH, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
COUNTY OF ATLANTIC, et al., 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
Civil Action 
No. 21-20589 (CPO) (EAP) 
 
 
 
OPINION AND ORDER 
O’HEARN, District Judge. 
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court ’s March 20, 2026, 
Opinion and Order. (ECF No. 163). For the following reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s 
motion. 
Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) governs motions for reconsideration and allows parties to seek 
reconsideration of what they believe are “overlooked” matters. See e.g., Carney v. Pennsauken 
Twp. Police Dep ’t, No. 11 -7366, 2013 WL 4501454, at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 21, 2013). To be 
successful on a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must demonstrate: “(1) an intervening 
change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the 
court [issued its order]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest 
injustice.” E.g., Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 
1999). 
As a preliminary matter, the motion is untimely as Plaintiff filed it nearly two months after 
the Court entered its decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“[N]o later than 28 days after the entry 
of the judgment.”); L. Civ. R. 7.1(i) (“[A] motion for reconsideration shall be served and filed 
within 14 days after the entry of the order or judgment.”). PageID:
<pageID>
2 
 
Next, for substantially the same reasons set forth in the Court’s prior Opinion, Plaintiff has 
not met the reconsideration standard. (See ECF No. 160). Plaintiff primarily argues that he was 
not responsible for his misconduct, due to institutional transfers and his lack of stable housing. 
(ECF No. 163, at 3–6). His motion, however, fails to specifically address any of his many failures 
to comply with the Court’s Rules and Orders, detailed in the Court’s prior Opinion. (Compare id. 
at 2–6, with ECF No. 160, at 5–13). Nor does it meaningfully address the Court’s findings as to 
any particular Poulis factor. (Compare ECF No. 163, at 2–6, with ECF No. 160, at 5–13). 
Furthermore, it appears that Plaintiff has once again failed to provide the Court with his 
current address. Mail sent to Plaintiff on May 19, 2026, was returned as undeliverable on June 10, 
2026, resulting in yet another failure to comply with Local Civil Rule 10.1 and the Court ’s prior 
Orders. (See ECF No. 168). Indeed , this decision may very well “ find itself taking a round -trip 
tour through the United States mail .” See McLaren v. New Jersey Dep ’t of Educ., 462 F. App’x 
148, 149 (3d Cir. 2012) (cleaned up). Accordingly, 
IT IS, on this 15th day of June 2026, 
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall reopen this case for consideration of 
Plaintiff’s latest submissions; and it is further 
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 163), is DENIED; and 
it is further 
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Opinion and Order upon 
Plaintiff at his last known address by regular U.S. mail and once again CLOSE this case. 
 
/s/ Christine P. O’Hearn 
 Christine P. O’Hearn 
 United States District Judge PageID:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight