Also pending is plaintiff’s pro se Request (doc. 29) for an order obliging defendants “to
pay [her] past gum and dental and [her] future bills.” (Request, at 1.) To the extent that plaintiff is
restating claims already presented in her Complaint, this submission is redundant and therefore moot.
To the extent she wishes to interpose new claims (i.e., a request for injunctive relief relating to “future
bills”), the Request is denied. It is far too late in the day for plaintiff to add new causes of action,
particularly given that (i) discovery has closed, (ii) the time for amending pleadings, as set forth in the
Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order, has long expired, (iii) defendants would suffer prejudice by the injection
of new claims into this action at this juncture, and (iv) she has failed to show good cause for not coming
forward with such claims earlier.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CIVIL ACTION 04-0435-WS-L
WAL-MART STORES, INC. and WAL-
MART CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR,
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Edna Mosley’s pro se Notice for Error
Reconsideration (doc. 26), which the Court has construed as a Motion for Relief from Judgment
pursuant to Rule 60(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.1
Plaintiff Edna Mosley’s Complaint reflects that she seeks recovery from defendants based on
their denial of her claims for dental benefits arising from treatments in 2002 and 2003. The Complaint
identifies five dental charges for which reimbursement is sought: (i) a $59 charge by Dr. Reynolds on
November 7, 2002, for teeth cleaning; (ii) another $59 charge by Dr. Reynolds on June 10, 2003 for
teeth cleaning; (iii) a $70 charge by Dr. Brown on July 29, 2002, for gum treatment; (iv) another $70
charge by Dr. Brown on January 28, 2003, for gum treatment; and (v) an undated $155 charge by Dr.