Howard v. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG+)
ORDER: Before the court is Plaintiffs pro se 79 Motion for reconsideration, which is construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to FRCP 59(e). It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. 79 ) is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/5/2017. (dmn, ) Modified on 9/5/2017 to correct judge name signing order; wrong name selected erroneously. (dmn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
PONCE D. HOWARD,
CASE NO. 2:16-CV-230-WKW
Before the court is Plaintiff’s pro se motion for reconsideration (Doc. # 79),
which is construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The motion is due to be denied.
Rule 59(e) authorizes the filing of a motion to alter or amend a judgment after
its entry. In the Eleventh Circuit, “[t]he only grounds for granting [a Rule 59(e)]
motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” Arthur v.
King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (second alteration in
original) (quoting In re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999)). Rule 59(e)
“may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence
that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v.
Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n.5 (2008) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff has presented no ground that entitles him to relief under Rule 59(e).
He does not rely on newly discovered evidence, and none of his arguments shows
the need to correct a manifest error of law or fact. Accordingly, it is ORDERED
that Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. # 79) is
DONE this 5th day of September, 2017.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?