Lewis v. Deepwell Energy Services LLC

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
LORENZO LEWIS, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§ Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-2354-X-BK
DEEPWELL ENERGY SERVICES,
LLC, and DUFF CAPITAL
INVESTORS CORP.,
§
§
§
§
Defendants. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Lorenzo Lewis’s opposed motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s Order. (Doc. 38). After reviewing the record, briefing,
and applicable law, the Court DENIES Lewis’s motion for reconsideration.
The Order accepting findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge was not a final judgment, so Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(b) governs the Court’s analysis.1 “Although the precise standard for evaluating a
motion to reconsider under Rule 54(b) is unclear, whether to grant such a motion
rests within the discretion of the court.”2
The Court sees no reason to change its mind here. Lewis argues that the Court
erred in dismissing his claims against Duff Capital Investors Corp. (DCI), by
requiring administrative exhaustion, and by failing to properly consider his equitable
1 See McClendon v. United States, 892 F.3d 775, 781 (5th Cir. 2018); Doc. 34.
2 Dos Santos v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 651 F. Supp. 2d 550, 553 (N.D. Tex. 2009) (Means,
J.) (cleaned up).
Case 3:25-cv-02354-X-BK Document 42 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

2
tolling and unclean hands arguments.3 But the Court already considered and
rejected each of Lewis’s arguments when ruling on his original objections.4 So the
Court again holds that Lewis failed to exhaust his administrative remedies against
DCI.5 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Lewis’s motion for reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of October, 2026.
___________________________________
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 See Doc. 38 at 5, 6, 8, 10.
4 Compare id. (containing reconsideration arguments on administrative exhaustion, equitable
tolling, and unclean hands), with Doc. 33 at 4, 7, 11, 15 (containing FCR objections on administrative
exhaustion, equitable tolling, and unclean hands), and Doc. 34 (the Order).
5 See Doc. 34 (Order). Lewis also argues that “the threshold exhaustion ruling requires
reconsideration of the objections the Court did not reach or rejected on that basis.” Doc. 38 at 12
(cleaned up). Because the Court denies reconsideration on exhaustion, it still need not reach this basis.
Case 3:25-cv-02354-X-BK Document 42 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>