Addison v. Dept. of the Navy

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 28 Motion for Reconsideration (c/m to Plaintiff 4/13/15 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 4/13/2015. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
VERNON ADDISON
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 13-0846

:
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, :
Office of Counsel
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On March 20, 2015, the court issued a memorandum opinion
and order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor
of Defendant and against Plaintiff on claims of race and gender
discrimination and retaliation under Title VII.
27).

(ECF Nos. 26 &

On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document labeled as a

“request [for] reconsideration and vacate judgment.”
28).

(ECF No.

The sum total of Plaintiff’s request reads: “[t]he letter

sending request for vacate of case from Dept. of the Navy was
never

sent

to

Vernon

Addison,

therefore

no

response

due

to

communication, and therefore request reconsideration and vacate
judgment, to be able to respond and proper service to Vernon
Addison, POB 358, Funkstown, MD

21734.”

Plaintiff’s submission is wholly unclear.
“[t]he

letter

sending

request

[to]

vacate

He asserts that
[the]

case

from

[Defendant]”

was

never

sent

to

him.

Plaintiff

opposed

Defendant’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, however,
thus

any

argument

disingenuous.

that

he

did

not

receive

this

filing

is

Insofar as Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the

March 20th memorandum opinion, he does not provide any basis for
reconsideration.
days

of

the

Fed.R.Civ.P.

A motion for reconsideration filed within 28

underlying
59(e).

order,
Courts

such
have

as

here,

is

recognized

governed

three

by

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 Cir. 1998)).

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.”

Pacific Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at 403 (quoting 11

Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, at 127–
28 (2d ed. 1995)).

Plaintiff

has

not

addressed

grounds for reconsideration under Rule 59(e).

2

any

of

the

Accordingly, it is this 13th day of April, 2015, by the
United

States

District

Court

for

the

District

of

Maryland,

ORDERED that:
1.

The motion for reconsideration filed by Plaintiff (ECF

No. 28) BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED; and
2.

The

clerk

is

directed

to

transmit

copies

of

this

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

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

3