Daughtry v. Army Fleet Support LLC et al

Filing 184

OPINION AND ORDER denying 167 MOTION to Alter, Amend, or Vacate the Judgment. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/5/2014. (wcl, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

RORY M. DAUGHTRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARMY FLEET SUPPORT, LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:11cv153-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Rory M. Daughtry has filed a motion to
alter, amend, or vacate the summary judgment entered in
favor of defendants on February 15, 2013.

Daughtry v.

Army Fleet Support, LLC, 925 F.Supp.2d 1277 (M.D. Ala.
2013) (Thompson, J.).

Because he has offered no newly

discovered evidence and demonstrated no manifest error of
law or fact, the motion will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND
Daughtry brought this action against a number of
defendants, including his employer, defendant Army Fleet

Support, LLC, a military contractor.

He alleged, among

other things, that Army Fleet violated the Americans with
Disabilities

Act

(ADA),

as

amended

(42

U.S.C.

§§

12111-12117), by failing to provide him with a reasonable
accommodation

following

a

shoulder

injury.

In

particular, Daughtry, who was employed as an aircraft
mechanic, was for a time assigned to a special mechanic
duty known as “parts-turn-in,” which in essence consisted
of

receiving

and

shelving

various

items.

The

accommodation he sought was continued assignment to that
duty, even after a change in military policy resulted in
parts-turn-in positions being filled by only mechanics
who had greater seniority than Daughtry had.
The court granted summary judgment to defendants on
all

of

Support,

Daughtry’s
LLC,

925

(Thompson, J.).
this

motion,

the

claims.
F.Supp.2d

Daughtry
1277

v.

Army

Fleet

(M.D.

Ala.

2013)

Most importantly for the purposes of
court

determined

that

Daughtry

had

failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact

2

regarding his claim under the ADA.

The court found that

his employer, Army Fleet, had satisfied its duties under
the

ADA,

but

that

ultimately

it

was

not

able

to

accommodate him as he desired.

The court determined,

among

was

other

things,

that

there

no

parts-turn-in

position available to a worker of Daughtry’s seniority.
In order to place Daughtry in a parts-turn-in position,
Army Fleet would have needed either to create a new
position for him or to displace a more senior employee in
violation of the company’s agreement with Daughtry’s
union.

As the court explained, the ADA did not require

Army Fleet to take either action.
Daughtry then timely filed the instant motion to
alter, amend, or vacate the summary judgment entered in
against

him.

Like

his

previous

filings,

Daughtry’s

motion is muddled and confusing.

It is, however, clear

that

discovered

Daughtry

Rather,

he

offers

claims

no

that

newly
in

order

to

avoid

evidence.
manifest

injustice, the court must reinstate his ADA claim.

3

He

does not challenge the court’s summary judgment on his
other claims.

II. DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) allows a party
to

request

vacated.
entertain

that
The
such

a

judgment

court
a

has

be

altered,

considerable

motion,

but

amended,

or

discretion

to

“reconsideration

of

a

judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which
should be used sparingly.”

11 Charles Alan Wright,

Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 2810.1.

“The Eleventh Circuit Court of

Appeals has stated that, ‘The only grounds for granting
[a

Rule

59]

motion

are

newly-discovered

manifest errors of law or fact.’”

evidence

or

McClease v. Alabama

Dep't of Corr., 2008 WL 110913 at *1 (M.D. Ala. 2008)
(Thompson, J.) (quoting Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335,
1343 (11th Cir. 2007)).

“‘[A] Rule 59(e) motion [cannot

be used] to relitigate old matters, raise argument or

4

present evidence that could have been raised prior to the
entry of judgment.’”

In re Yulin Ma, 346 F. App'x 436,

438 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Arthur, 500 F.3d at 1343).
Apart from some tangential arguments, the core of
Daughtry’s

motion

seeks

to

revisit

the

question

of

whether there was a parts-turn-in position in which he
could have been placed.

He argues that he was qualified

to work in a parts-turn-in position and that placing him
in

such

a

position

would

accommodation under the ADA.

have

been

a

reasonable

He argues that there were

available parts-turn-in positions.

And he argues that

Army Fleet’s allegedly unusual handling of his requests
for accommodation indicated that it acted in bad faith.
The court has heard all these arguments before, and
Daughtry is simply seeking to relitigate issues that the
court has already decided.

The court determined that, on

the record before it, the lack of an available partsturn-in position for someone of Daughtry’s seniority was
undisputed.

Nothing Daughtry offers now alters that

5

conclusion;

in

particular,

as

he

did

in

his

summary-judgment briefing, Daughtry “entirely ignores the
issue

of

seniority”

F.Supp.2d at 1283.

in

his

motion.

Daughtry,

925

There has been no manifest error of

fact or law.
Similarly, the court has already determined that any
alleged

irregularities

in

Army

Fleet’s

process

for

addressing Daughtry’s requests for accommodation were
insufficient to overcome the lack of an available partsturn-in position.
that

Army

Fleet

“[I]t is not enough to show merely
potentially

committed

a

procedural

irregularity in its search for accommodations; rather,
Daughtry must show that there was an actual, not just
hypothetical, reasonable accommodation that could have
been taken.”

Id.

Again, Daughtry offers nothing to

suggest a manifest error of fact or law in this case.
Manifest error does not mean that one does not like
the outcome of a case, or that one believes the court did
not properly weigh the evidence.

6

See Hutchinson v.

Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1082 (4th Cir. 1993) (noting that
“mere

disagreement

motion”).

does

not

support

a

Rule

59(e)

Rather, manifest error is an “error that is

plain and indisputable, and that amounts to a complete
disregard of the controlling law or the credible evidence
in the record.”

Error, Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.

2009). Daughtry has offered nothing even to suggest any
error of this magnitude; he simply believes this court
got

it

wrong

the

first

time.

Any

litigant

believes may, of course, seek appellate review.

who

so

But such

a litigant will find no relief under Rule 59(e).

***
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion to alter,
amend, or vacate the judgment (doc. no. 167), filed by
plaintiff Rory M. Daughtry, is denied.
DONE, this the 5th day of February, 2014.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE