Davidson v. Stringer et al, No. 4:2022cv00897 - Document 8 (E.D. Mo. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his complaint [ECF No. 7 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 9/23/22. (EAB)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Davidson v. Stringer et al Doc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION DEAN BRYAN DAVIDSON, Plaintiff, v. MARK STRINGER, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 4:22-CV-897 JMB OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of this action. After reviewing the grounds raised by plaintiff, the Court will decline to alter or amend the judgment of this Court. The Court concludes that plaintiff’s motion fails to point to any manifest errors of law or fact, or any newly discovered evidence. Instead, the motion can be said to merely revisit old arguments.1 Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to reconsideration of the dismissal of his complaint, and his motion will be denied. Accordingly, 1 Plaintiff attempts to argue that the Court misinterpreted the beginning date of the statute of limitations in this matter by asserting that he was not placed on the drug desmopressin in 2008. However, this Court takes judicial notice of plaintiff’s previous assertions to this Court, as well as the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, where he claimed that he was misdiagnosed as incapacitated in 2007 due to side effects of desmopressin. Dr. Sternberg purportedly committed malpractice by failing to report that he was taking the drug desmopressin to a trauma center, and he was again prescribed the drug in 2008 for six more years. See Davidson v. Walker, No. 2:17-CV-4147 FJG (W.D.Mo.); Davidson v. Stringer, No. 2:19-CV-4148 BCW (W.D.Mo); Davidson v. Sternberg, No. 4:19-CV-2148 RWS (E.D.Mo); Davidson v. Stringer, No. 4:20-CV-1478 DDN (E.D.Mo.); Davidson v. Ferring Pharmaceuticals, No. 2:21-CV-4156 BCW (W.D.Mo.); and Davidson v. Ferring Pharmaceuticals, No. 2:21-CV-4205 BCW (W.D.Mo.). Even if, as plaintiff asserts, the statute of limitations did not start until 2012, he was aware of the effect of the desmopressin as early as August 11, 2017, when he began filing lawsuits regarding his issues with being represcribed desmopressin. See Davidson v. Walker, No. 2:17-CV-4147 FJG (W.D.Mo). Thus, the current action would still be time-barred, as it was not placed in the mail at Southeast Mental Health Center until August 23, 2022. Dockets.Justia.com IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his complaint [ECF No. 7] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Dated this 23rd day of September, 2022. HENRY EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
