Milligan v. Ally Financial
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 23 Motion for Reconsideration (c/m to Plaintiff 6/24/16 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 6/24/2016. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
GERARD AVERY MILLIGAN
Civil Action No. DKC 15-3486
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On May 20, 2016, the court issued a memorandum opinion and
Defendant Ally Financial (“Defendant”), denying the cross-motion
for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Gerard Avery Milligan
against Plaintiff on all counts in Plaintiff’s complaint, and
closing this action.
(ECF Nos. 19; 20).
On June 17, Plaintiff
filed the pending motion for reconsideration.
(ECF No. 23).
A motion for reconsideration filed within 28 days of the
underlying order is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
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
cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1012
A Rule 59(e) motion “may not be used to re-litigate old
matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could
have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.”
Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, at 127–28 (2d ed. 1995)).
general, ‘reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an
(quoting Wright, et al., supra, § 2810.1, at 124).
Here, Plaintiff has not addressed any of the grounds for
reconsideration under Rule 59(e), nor does any appear to be
Plaintiff’s motion merely recites his belief that
Defendant was invalid or fraudulent.
Plaintiff may not rehash
the same arguments considered and rejected by the court in the
reveals a ‘mere disagreement’ with the court’s decision and thus
reconsideration under Rule 59(e).
Panowicz v. Hancock, No. DKC-
11-2417, 2015 WL 5895528, at *3 (D.Md. Oct. 5, 2015) (citing
Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration must be denied.
Accordingly, it is this 24th
day of June, 2016, by the
The motion for reconsideration filed by Plaintiff (ECF
No. 23) BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED; and
counsel for Defendant.
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?