Harrison-Khatana v. Cannon et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 17 Motion for Reconsideration (c/m to Plaintiff 12/21/12 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 12/21/12. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
DEBORAH HARRISON-KHATANA
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 11-3715

:
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA
TRANSIT AUTHORITY

:

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On October 31, 2012, the court issued an order dismissing
all counts of Plaintiffs’ complaint against Defendant Cannon, a
Washington

Metropolitan

Area

Transit

Authority

(“WMATA”)

district manager, because “he is not a proper defendant to a
Title VII or ADA lawsuit.”

(ECF No. 14, at 4).

On November 27,

Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which is presently
pending.

(ECF No. 17).

A motion for reconsideration filed within 28 days of the
underlying order is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e).

Courts

have

recognized

three

limited

grounds

for

granting a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule
of

Civil

Procedure

59(e):

(1)

to

accommodate

an

intervening

change in controlling law, (2) to account for new evidence not
available at trial, or (3) to correct clear error of law or
prevent manifest injustice.

See United States ex rel. Becker v.

Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir.

2002) (citing Pacific Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148
F.3d 396, 403 (4th
(2003).

Cir. 1998)),

cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1012

A Rule 59(e) motion “may not be used to relitigate old

matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could
have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.”
Co.,

148

Practice

F.3d
and

at

403

Procedure

(quoting
§

11

2810.1,

Wright,

at

Pacific Ins.

et

127–28

al.,

Federal

ed.

1995)).

(2d

Where a party presents newly discovered evidence in support of
its

Rule

59(e)

motion,

it

“must

produce

a

legitimate

justification for not presenting the evidence during the earlier
proceeding.”
Cir.

Id. (quoting Small v. Hunt, 98 F.3d 789, 798 (4th

1996))

(internal

‘reconsideration
extraordinary

of

remedy

marks
judgment

a

omitted).
after

which

should

be

used

“In
its

general,

entry

is

sparingly.’”

an
Id.

(quoting Wright, et al., supra, § 2810.1, at 124).
Plaintiff has not sufficiently addressed any of the grounds
for reconsideration under Rule 59(e), nor does any appear to be
applicable.
considered

Rather,
and

she

rejected

motion to dismiss.

merely
by

the

rehashes
court

in

the

same

deciding

arguments
the

prior

See Sanders v. Prince George’s Public School

System, No. RWT 08cv501, 2011 WL 4443441, at *1 (D.Md. Sept. 21,
2011) (a motion for reconsideration is “not the proper place to
relitigate a case after the court has ruled against a party, as
mere

disagreement

with

a

court’s
2

rulings

will

not

support

granting such a request”).1

Thus, her motion for reconsideration

cannot prevail.
Accordingly, it is this 21st day of December, 2012, by the
United

States

District

Court

for

the

District

of

Maryland,

ORDERED that:
1.

The motion for reconsideration filed by Plaintiff (ECF

No. 17) BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED; and
2.

The

clerk

is

directed

to

transmit

copies

of

this

Memorandum Opinion and Order directly to Plaintiff and counsel
for Defendant.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

1

The argument presented by the pro se plaintiff suggests
that she has misunderstood the import of the prior decision,
which merely dismissed Mr. Cannon because a supervising public
employee cannot be held liable under Title VII or the ADA.
Indeed, the case continues against WMATA, and Plaintiff’s
argument relating to the alleged misconduct of Mr. Cannon may be
relevant in that context.
3