Terris Radcliffe v. O'Herren - Motion for Reconsideration Denied

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Terris Radcliffe v. William Gregory O'Herren, George Robert Geiger, CubeSmart TRS, Inc., Shamrock Builders, Inc.; Schindler Elevator Corporation, Eric Probst, Frost Brown Todd, Matthew Delks, Jason Aldridge; Millstone Management, LLC, Adrien Dannemiller

District Court, S.D. Indiana

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:24-cv-01056

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (3.5K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

TERRIS RADCLIFFE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:24-cv-01056-TWP-KMB
)
WILLIAM GREGORY O'HERREN, )
GEORGE ROBERT GEIGER, )
CUBESMART TRS, INC., )
SHAMROCK BUILDERS, INC., )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, )
ERIC PROBST, )
FROST BROWN TODD, )
MATTHEW DELKS, )
JASON ALDRIDGE, )
)
Intervenors. )
)
MILLSTONE MANAGEMENT, LLC, )
ADRIEN DANNEMILLER, )
)
Interested Parties. )

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER ON
MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE AND REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION
This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Terris Radcliffe's ("Mr. Radcliffe")
Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's December 15, 2025 Order on Plaintiff's Motion to
Transfer Venue and Request for Explanation and Corrections (Dkt. 160). For the reasons explained
below, the Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's December 15, 2025 Order is denied.1

1 Intervenor's Motion to Strike (Dkt. 164) portions of the instant Motion for Reconsideration will be addressed in a
separate order in due course.
I. BACKGROUND
On November 14, 2024, the Court screened Mr. Radcliffe's Second Amended Complaint
(Dkt. 24) and determined that his state law negligence claims against Defendants William Gregory
O'Herren, George Robert Geiger, CubeSmart TRS Inc., and Shamrock Builders, Inc. (together,
"Defendants"), could proceed (Dkt. 31). In November 2025, Mr. Radcliffe filed a Motion to

Transfer Venue to the Northern District of Georgia (Dkt. 140) and Request for Explanations and
Corrections (Dkt. 149) seeking clarification as to why he had been given incorrect dial-in
information for a telephonic conference and requesting that the Magistrate Judge recuse herself
and be suspended. On December 15, 2025, the Court denied the request for transfer, granted Mr.
Radcliffe's request for an explanation about the telephonic conference, and denied his request for
recusal of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 156).
In the instant 47-page Motion for Reconsideration,2 Mr. Radcliffe argues that the
Magistrate Judge's "appearance of impartiality is severely compromised" and asks the Court to
reconsider "whether Magistrate Judge Barr incorrectly ordered the denial of the Plaintiff's
continuance request and the subsequent issuance of the court orders that ensued from the October

3, 2025, discovery dispute hearing." (Dkt. 160 at 44–45).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Although motions to reconsider are not specifically authorized by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, Mr. Radcliffe's Motion is properly classified as one under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(b) because no final judgment has been entered in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)
("[A]ny order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or
the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims

2 Mr. Radcliffe is reminded of the page limits imposed by the Court's Local Rules; 30 pages for opening briefs, 30
pages for responses, and 15 pages for replies, unless the Court expressly permits excess pages. S.D. Ind. L.R. 7-1(e).
or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims
and all the parties' rights and liabilities."). When ruling on a Rule 54(b) motion, the Court applies
a similar standard as applied to motions to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e).
Motions to reconsider filed pursuant to Rule 54(b) or Rule 59(e) are for the purpose of

correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence not available at
the time of briefing. Katz-Crank v. Haskett, No. 13-cv-00159, 2014 WL 3507298, at *1–2 (S.D.
Ind. July 14, 2014); Woods v. Resnick, 725 F. Supp. 2d 809, 827–28 (W.D. Wis. 2010). Motions to
reconsider "serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence." State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Nokes, 263 F.R.D. 518, 526 (N.D. Ind. 2009).
The motion is to be used "where the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a
decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error
not of reasoning but of apprehension." Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d
1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). A motion to reconsider under Rule 54(b) also may
be appropriate where there has been "a controlling or significant change in the law or facts since

the submission of the issue to the Court." Id. (citation omitted).
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to ask the court to reconsider matters
"properly encompassed in a decision on the merits." Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169,
174 (1989). The motion "will be successful only where the movant clearly establishes: (1) that the
court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded
entry of judgment." Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer, 722 F.3d 939, 954 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation
and quotation marks omitted). A manifest error "is not demonstrated by the disappointment of the
losing party. It is the wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling
precedent." Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (citation and quotation
marks omitted). A motion to reconsider "is not an opportunity to relitigate motions or present
arguments, issues, or facts that could and should have been presented earlier." Id. III. DISCUSSION
As mentioned above, the present Motion seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's
order denying Mr. Radcliffe's request to continue an October 3, 2025 in-person hearing and all

subsequent orders "that ensued from the October 3, 2025, discovery dispute hearing." (Dkt. 128 at
44–45). On April 6, 2026, Defendants filed a response to the Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. 191).
Defendants' response disputes the truth of select statements in Mr. Radcliffe's Motion but entirely
fails to address whether reconsideration is appropriate.3 Despite the lack of substantive opposition
from Defendants, the Court finds that reconsideration is not appropriate here.
While Mr. Radcliffe's Motion for Reconsideration raises the same arguments raised in his
Request for Explanation and Corrections—namely, that the Court is not impartial and is biased
against him—his Motion does not actually seek reconsideration of the Court's December 15, 2025
Order. Instead, it seeks reconsideration of a broad swath of the Magistrate Judge's orders on or
after October 3, 2025, on the basis of alleged bias. Those orders must be challenged through

motions to reconsider those orders, or a timely objection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72, not a motion to reconsider a different order by the undersigned Judge. Mr. Radcliffe's Motion
for Reconsideration is therefore denied.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, Mr. Radcliffe's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's
Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer Venue and Request for Explanation and Corrections (Dkt.
160) is DENIED.

3 Mr. Radcliffe filed a combined reply in support of this Motion and other pending motions (Dkt. 192). But his reply
relates to this request for sanctions against defense counsel, and not this request for reconsideration.
SO ORDERED. A 5 .
Date: _ 4/17/2026 abhon ath
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
TERRIS RADCLIFFE
5400 Glenridge Drive #420802
Atlanta, GA 30342
Rebekah Bennett
Office of Indiana Attorney General
rebekah.bennett@atg.in.gov
Adriana Conway
Frost Brown Todd
aconway@fbtlaw.com
Lucas J Heffner
lucas.heffner@atg.in.gov
Kimberly E. Howard
Fisher Maas Howard Lloyd Wheeler & Cole, PC
khoward@fishermaas.com
Eric Rupenthal
Easter & Cavoise
erupenthal@easterandcavosie.com
Kevin C. Schiferl
Fbt Gibbons LLP
kschiferl@fbtgibbons.com
Blake N. Shelby
FBT Gibbons LLP
bshelby@fbtgibbons.com
Adam Daniel Zacher
Easter & Cavoise
azacher@easterandcavosie.com