Brown v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Department of Public Works et al

Filing 125

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: It is ordered that 124 MOTION to Alter Judgment is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 12/6/2012.(SCD)cc: COR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DIVISION OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON

PAULA B. BROWN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN
COUNTY GOVERNMENT, et. al.,
Defendants.

Civil Case No.
5:08-cv-500-JMH
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

***

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion
to alter or amend the Judgment (D.E. 123) and Memorandum
Opinion and Order (D.E. 122) granting summary judgment to
Defendants.

Plaintiff filed this motion under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 52(b), but because this action was dismissed at the
summary

judgment

stage,

and

a

trial

was

not

held,

the

motion is properly considered under Rule 59(e).
“A motion under Rule 59(e) is not an opportunity to
re-argue

a

Indians

v.

case.”

Sault

Engler,

146

Ste.

F.3d

Marie

367,

374

Tribe
(6th

of

Chippewa

Cir.

1998)

(citing FDIC v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.
1992)).
if

Instead, a Rule 59(e) motion may only be granted

“there

is

a

clear

error

of

law,

newly

discovered

evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or to

prevent

manifest

injustice.”

GenCorp,

Inc.

v.

American

Intern. Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999).
The

Court

has

reviewed

Plaintiff and her counsel.

the

materials

presented

by

Plaintiff fails to satisfy any

of the above grounds, and, instead, merely repeats evidence
that

this

Court

previously

considered

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

when

it

granted

(D.E. 111).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to
Amend, Alter or Vacate (D.E. 124) be, and the same hereby
is, DENIED.
This the 6th day of December, 2012.

2