Omar S. Folk v. BUREAU OF PRISONS, Employees

CLD-098 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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)

-- 1 of 3 --

2
__________
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 of 3 --

3
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 of 3 --