Hodge et al v. College of Southern Maryland (CSM) et al

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 40 Motion for Reconsideration (c/m to Plaintiffs 9/4/15 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 9/4/2015. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
HAROLD HODGE, et al.
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 14-2829

:
COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN MARYLAND,
et al.

:

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On August 3, 2015, the court issued a memorandum opinion
and order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed
Plaintiffs claims against all defendants.
On

August

17,

Plaintiffs

filed

which is presently pending.

a

motion

(ECF Nos. 38 and 39).
for

(ECF No. 40).

reconsideration
Plaintiffs argue

that the court is biased toward them and misapplied the law.
The State of Maryland, The College of Southern Maryland, Bradley
M. Gottfried, Susan Subocz, Loretta McGrath, Richard B. Fleming,
Jeffrey Potter, Richard Welsh, Matthew Schatz, Ricardo “Doe”,
and Charlie “Doe” filed oppositions.

(ECF Nos. 41 and 42).

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

a

marks
judgment

which

should

omitted).
after
be

“In
its

used

entry

general,
is

sparingly.’”

an
Id.

(quoting Wright, et al., supra, § 2810.1, at 124).
Plaintiffs
grounds

for

have

not

sufficiently

reconsideration

appear to be applicable.

under

Rule

addressed
59(e),

any
nor

of

the

does

any

The court will not rehash the same

arguments considered and rejected by the court in deciding the
prior motions to dismiss.

See Sanders v. Prince George’s Public

School System, No. RWT 08cv501, 2011 WL 4443441, at *1 (D.Md.
2

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 rulings will not
support granting such a request”).

Thus, Plaintiffs’ motion for

reconsideration cannot prevail.
Accordingly, it is this 4th day of September, 2015, by the
United

States

District

Court

for

the

District

of

Maryland,

ORDERED that:
1.

The

motion

for

reconsideration

filed

by

Plaintiffs

(ECF No. 40) BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED; and
2.

The

clerk

is

directed

to

transmit

copies

of

this

Memorandum Opinion and Order directly to Plaintiffs and counsel
for Defendants.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

3