WASHINGTON v. DONAHOE et al

Filing 62

MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Plaintiff 2/4/14 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 2/4/14. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
DEBBIE WASHINGTON
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 13-0339

:
PATRICK R. DONAHOE, et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff

Debbie

Washington,

a

former

employee

of

the

United States Postal Service (“USPS”), commenced this action on
January 10, 2013, against her former employer, many of her USPS
supervisors,

leaders

of

the

postal

workers’

union,

and

an

arbitrator (collectively “Defendants”), claiming that Defendants
violated Title VII, the Rehabilitation Act, and the duty of fair
representation.

By

memorandum

opinion

and

order,

the

court

granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed Plaintiff’s
complaint on December 12, 2013.
December

27,

2013,

reconsideration.

Plaintiff

(ECF Nos. 56 and 57).

filed

the

pending

motion

On
for

(ECF No. 58).

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

Courts have recognized three limited grounds

for granting such a motion: (1) to accommodate an intervening
change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not

previously available; 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 Cir. 1998)).

A Rule 59(e) motion “may not be

used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present
evidence

that

judgment.”

could

have

been

raised

Pacific

Ins.

Co.,

148

prior

F.3d

to

at

the

403

entry

of

(quoting

11

Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, at 127–
28 (2d ed. 1995)).
Plaintiff’s numerous claims were dismissed because: (1) she
failed to state a claim against the arbitrator; (2) she failed
to

exhaust

administratively

her

Federal

Tort

Claims

Act

and

employment discrimination claims against USPS and its employees;
and (3) her claims against USPS, its employees, and her union
were barred by the statute of limitations.
to

reconsider

fails

to

present

any

Plaintiff’s motion

evidence

that

the

law

resulting in these conclusions has since changed or that the
court got the law clearly wrong.

Plaintiff has also failed to

bring forth any evidence not previously available that addresses
the procedural deficiencies highlighted in the December 12, 2013
opinion.
that

Instead, Plaintiff contends – for the first time –

Defendants

property,

and

have

engaged

trespass

in

against
2

embezzlement,
title.

conversion

Plaintiff

is

of

doing

nothing more than attempting to relitigate her case, raising
arguments that could have been raised prior to the entry of
judgment.
denied.1

Consequently, her motion for reconsideration will be
A separate Order will follow.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

1

Plaintiff requests that if the motion for reconsideration
is not granted, that the court give her a “right to appeal.” An
appeal from this judgment is governed by the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure and the Local Rules of Appellate Procedure
for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
3