Court Opinion

ID: 9397632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 19:06:13.558788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:26.441848
License: Public Domain

CLD-098                                                    NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                              ___________

                             Nos. 22-3078 & 22-3208
                                  ___________

                                OMAR S. FOLK,
                                          Appellant

                                        v.

  BUREAU OF PRISONS, Employees and Medical Staff; PA-C SAMUEL GOSA;
ELIZABETH SANTOS/STAHL, Clinical Director; DR. ROBERT E. PUCELL; JOHN
  T. BURN; BRIAN BUSCHMAN; D. PARKER; M. MAGYAR; R. PARKYN; C.
    SMITH; JENNIFER HOLTZ-APPLE; DAVID J. BALL; PA-C ZALNO; CO.
  GENTZYEL; R&D FAUSEY; M. WASHINGTON; L. HUNTER; J. POTOPE; T.
GREELY; T. ANDRESS; T. CULLEN; J. MARIS; A. RODERMEL; A. DEWALT; C.
   CRAIG; NICK MAIZE; C. ERICKSON; E. STAHL; J. WALKER; C. CAIN; J.
                FREYNIK; D. NICOLLETTE; T. THOMAS
                ____________________________________

                 On Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
                   (M.D. Pa. Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-02252)
                  District Judge: Honorable Robert D. Mariani
                  ____________________________________

     Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
       Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                  March 2, 2023
      Before: GREENAWAY, JR., MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

                         (Opinion filed: March 25, 2023)
                                       __________

                                        OPINION*
                                        _________

PER CURIAM

       Omar Sierre Folk appeals from two orders of the District Court denying his post-

judgment motions. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm the District

Court’s judgment.

       In 2018, Folk brought a civil rights action in the District Court regarding his

medical care in prison. In 2021, the District Court dismissed his complaint. After Folk

appealed, we affirmed the District Court’s judgment, and Folk’s subsequent petition for a

writ of certiorari was denied. See Folk v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 21-1543, 2021 WL

3521143, at *1 (3d Cir. Aug. 11, 2021), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 133 (2022).

       Folk then returned to the District Court. He filed a motion seeking reconsideration

of the denial of a prior motion he filed to amend his complaint, as well as a motion for

leave to file a certificate of merit regarding his claim of professional negligence. The

District Court denied both motions, noting that Folk’s appeal had concluded and that he

presented no argument to support reopening the case. Folk then filed another motion for

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

                                             2
leave to file a certificate of merit, which was denied. Folk has appealed both decisions.1

       The District Court properly concluded that Folk’s motions did not present an

appropriate basis for reopening his case. See Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244,

255 (3d Cir. 2008); Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d

669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). Folk had an opportunity to make arguments about his

underlying factual allegations throughout District Court proceedings and on appeal, and

he has made arguments regarding filing a certificate of merit since early on in the District

Court litigation. Cf. Smith v. Evans, 853 F.2d 155, 158 (3d Cir. 1988) (explaining that

motions for reconsideration “may not be used as a substitute for appeal”), overruled on

other grounds by Lizardo v. United States, 619 F.3d 273, 276-77 (3d Cir. 2010).

       Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s orders.2

1
  We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We may
summarily affirm a district court’s decision if an appeal fails to present a substantial
question. See Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
2
  Folk’s pending motions are denied.
                                              3