Alvarez v. United States Of America

Filing 18

ORDER denying Alvarez's 17 Motion for Reconsideration re 15 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations. The undersigned's Order dated 10/21/14, remains the Order of the Court. This case shall remain closed. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 1/16/2015. (ca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
BRUNSWICK DIVISION

CARLOS ALVAREZ,
Petitioner,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV214-070

V.

SUZANNE HASTINGS, Warden,
Respondent.

ORDER
Presently before the Court is Petitioner Carlos Alvarez's ("Alvarez") Motion for
Reconsideration of the undersigned's Order dated October 21, 2014. In that Order, the
undersigned adopted the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, over Alvarez's
Objections, and granted Respondent's motion to dismiss Alvarez's 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition. Alvarez contends that the Court denied him the right to be heard in a
meaningful manner. Alvarez contends that he was sentenced in excess of the statutory
maximum.
A motion for reconsideration, or a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion,
is "an extraordinary remedy, to be employed sparingly." Smith ex rel. Smith v. AugustaRichmond Cntv., No. CV 110-126, 2012 WL 1355575, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 18, 2012)
(internal citation omitted). "A movant must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing
nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision." Id. (internal citation omitted).

AC 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

"The only grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newly-discovered evidence or
manifest errors of law or fact." Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Intern., Inc., 626 F.3d 1327,
1344 (11th Cii. 2010) (quoting In re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999)
(internal punctuation omitted). "A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate old
matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the
entry of judgment." Id. (quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408
F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cii. 2005) (alterations omitted).
A review of Alvarez's Motion reveals that his Motion is nothing more than a
request asking the undersigned to re-examine the previous unfavorable ruling dated
October 21, 2014. (Doc. No. 15). Alvarez fails to show that the undersigned made a
manifest error of law or fact. Additionally, Alvarez fails to show that he could not have
presented his contentions previously. In fact, Alvarez made these same contentions in
his original petition and in his Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and

_

Recommendation. Alvarez's Motion is DENIED

The undersigned's Order dated

October 21, 2014, remains the Order of the Court. This case shall remain closed.
SO ORDERED, this

day of

c....

2015.

LISA GODBEY WOOD, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

1

2