Larry Jordan v. Allgroup Wheaton

OPINION PER CURIAM. Larry Jordan appeals pro se from the District Court’s orders denying his motions to reopen this action and for reconsideration. We will summarily affirm. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 In 2001, Jordan filed a complaint alleging racial discrimination. The District Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on September 4, 2002, 218 F.Supp.2d 643, and we affirmed. See Jordan v. Algroup Wheaton, C.A. No. 02-3622, 95 Fed.Appx. 462 (Table) (3d Cir. April 15, 2004). On December 3, 2007, Jordan filed in the District Court the motion to reopen at issue here. The motion does not contain any argument or allegation and instead merely requests a 60-day “extension” in which to file a supporting certification. The District Court denied the motion by order entered December 6, 2007. Jordan then filed a motion for an “extension of time,” in which he requested an extension to file a motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 7.1. Jordan alleged in his motion for an extension that he required this time to subpoena records regarding “investigation from EEOC and NLRB” but, once again, did not set forth any grounds for relief. The District Court denied that motion by order entered December 19, 2007, and Jordan appeals. We construe Jordan’s initial motion as one under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), and his second motion as one under Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e). We review the denial of each motion for abuse of discretion. See McDowell v. Phila. Hous. Autk, 423 F.3d 233, 238 (3d Cir.2005) (Rule 59(e)); Brown v. Phila. Hous. Auth, 350 F.3d 338, 342 (3d Cir.2003) (Rule 60(b)). In this case, Jordan’s Rule 60 motion does not contain any allegations whatsoever, let alone set forth grounds for relief from the District Court’s judgment. Jordan’s Rule 59 motion asserts that he requires time to subpoena certain records, but does not assert why he is seeking those records only now, what he expects them to contain, or how they might warrant reopening this action. Jordan’s filings in this Court also fail to state any grounds that might warrant reopening this action. Accordingly, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jordan’s *507 motions to reopen and for reconsideration, and we will summarily affirm.