LEE v. MCHUGH

Filing 20

ORDER denying 16 , 17 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 09/08/2016. (CCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
LINDA LEE,

*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*

ERIC K. FANNING, Secretary of
the Army,

*

CASE NO. 4:15-cv-194 (CDL)

*
Defendant.
*
O R D E R
The Court dismissed Plaintiff Linda Lee’s Complaint because
Lee

did

not

show

that

she

timely

appealed

the

Army’s

final

decision on her employment discrimination claims.

Order Granting

Mot. to Dismiss 6-9, July 22, 2016, ECF No. 14.

And if Lee had

established that she timely appealed the Army’s final decision,
her Complaint would have been premature.

Id. at 9 n.2.1

Lee now seeks to introduce evidence to establish when she
received the Army’s final decision and when she sent her appeal to
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Lee did not offer

any

“new”

reason

for

her

failure

to

provide

this

evidence

in

response to the Army’s motion to dismiss, except to say that there

1

Even if the Court considered Lee’s present argument that she filed her
appeal on June 29, 2015, her December 2, 2015 Complaint was still
premature because she was not permitted to file her civil action until
“[a]fter 180 days from the date of filing an appeal with the [EEOC] if
there has been no final decision by the [EEOC].” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.407(d).
If Lee filed her EEOC appeal on June 29, 2015 as she now argues, she was
required to wait until December 26, 2015 to file this action.

was “some confusion” about this issue due to “a change” in her
attorney’s office.

Pl.’s Mot. for Recons. 4, ECF No. 17.

The Court entered its order granting the Army’s motion to
dismiss on July 22, 2016.
same day.

Judgment was entered against Lee on the

Under Local Rule 7.6, if Lee wished to file a motion

for reconsideration, it was due “within fourteen (14) days after
entry of the order”—on August 5, 2016.

M.D. Ga. R. 7.6.

And if

Lee intended her “Motion for Reconsideration” to be a motion to
alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e), the motion was due “no later than 28 days after the entry
of the judgment”—on August 19, 2016.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

Court “must not extend the time to act under” Rule 59(e).
Civ. P. 6(b)(2).
until

August

22,

The

Fed. R.

Lee did not file her Motion for Reconsideration
2016.2

Thus,

whether

it

is

a

motion

for

reconsideration or a motion to alter or amend the judgment, Lee’s
motion (ECF Nos. 16 & 17) is untimely, and the Court denies it.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 8th day of September, 2016.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2

The three-day extension available under Rule 6(d) for certain kinds of
service does not apply to service deadlines under Rule 59(e).
Sequoia
Fin. Sols., Inc. v. Warren, No. 15-11534, 2016 WL 4375008, at *3 (11th
Cir. Aug. 17, 2016) (per curiam).

2