McNealy v. Becnel et al

Filing 244

ORDER AND REASONS re 241 Notice of Objection. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEWTON MCNEALY,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 14-2181

DARRYL J. BECNEL, ET AL.,
Defendants

SECTION: “E” (2)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff Newton McNealy’s Notice of Objection. 1 The Court
will consider this motion as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). Defendants filed eight dispositive motions. 2 On October 17, 2016, the
Court issued its order granting in part and deferring in part these dispositive motions. 3
In Plaintiff’s motion, he objects to various rulings of the Court with respect to the
granting of certain dispositive motions. 4
A motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure “must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present
newly discovered evidence and cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and
should, have been made before the judgment issued.” 5 A motion for reconsideration,
however, “is ‘not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments
that could have been offered or raised before the entry of [the order].’” 6 “The Court is
mindful that ‘[r]econsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy

R. Doc. 241.
R. Doc.s 117, 119, 121, 138, 146, 210, 215, 216.
3 R. Doc. 237.
4 R. Doc. 241.
5 Schiller v. Physicians Resource Group Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
6 Lacoste v. Pilgrim Int’l, No. 07-2904, 2009 WL 1565940, at *8 (E.D. La. June 3, 2009) (Vance, J.)
(quoting Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478–79 (5th Cir. 2004)).
1

2

1

that should be used sparingly.’”

7

“When there exists no independent reason for

reconsideration other than mere disagreement with a prior order, reconsideration is a
waste of judicial time and resources and should not be granted.” 8
In deciding motions under the Rule 59(e) standards, the courts in this district have
considered the following factors:
(1)

whether the movant demonstrates the motion is necessary to correct
manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based;

(2)

whether the movant presents new evidence;

(3)

whether the motion is necessary in order to prevent manifest injustice; and

(4)

whether the motion is justified by an intervening change in the controlling
law. 9

Plaintiff Newton McNealy did not provide any support to justify his motion for
reconsideration under any of the factors listed above. “Mere disagreement with a prior
ruling . . . does not support a motion for reconsideration, and the Court, therefore, finds
reconsideration is unwarranted.” 10
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration 11 is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 27th day of October, 2016.
__________ __ __________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7 Castrillo v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., No. 09-4369, 2010 WL 1424398, at *4 (alteration in
original) (quoting Templet, 367 F.3d at 479).
8 Lightfoot v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., No. 07-4833, 2012 WL 711842, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 5, 2012) (Brown,
J.).
9 Castrillo, 2010 WL 1424398, at *4. The Court notes that the time limits of Rule 59 do not apply in this
matter because the order appealed is interlocutory. Rules 59 and 60 set forth deadlines for seeking
reconsideration of final judgments. See Carter v. Farmers Rice Milling Co., Inc., 33 F. App’x 704 (5th Cir.
2002); Lightfoot, 2012 WL 711842, at *2.
10 Lightfoot, 2012 WL 711842, at *3.
11 R. Doc. 241.

2