Camuel v. The Kroger Company

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider 12 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 1/17/2019. (STC)cc: COR,PLT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
BRIAN CAMUEL,

)
)
) Civil Case No. 5:17-cv-495-JMH
)
)
) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
V.
THE KROGER COMPANY,
Defendant.
***

***

***

***

The Court evaluates a motion to reconsider a final order or
judgment as a motion to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59. See Keith v. Bobby, 618 F.3d 594, 598 (6th Cir.
2010) (citing Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 611 (6th
Cir. 2005)); Lonardo v. Travelers Indem. Co., 706 F. Supp.2d 766,
808 (N.D. Ohio 2010). A court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if
there is: (1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence;
(3) an intervening change in the law; or (4) a need to prevent
manifest injustice. See Intera Corp., 428 F.3d at 620 (citing
GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th
Cir. 1999)); see also Lonardo, 706 F. Supp.2d at 808-09.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider [DE 12; Response at DE 13]
the

Court’s

September

28,

2018

Memorandum

Order

and

Opinion

Judgment [DE 10 and 11] does nothing more than reargue his previous
response to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

He does not

identify a clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an

intervening change in the law, or a need to prevent manifest
injustice that would merit reconsideration.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider [DE 12] is
DENIED.
This the 17th day of January, 2019.

2