Yi v. Colvin

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 6 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 8/9/2016. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 8/9/16)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division

*
CHONG SUYI,

*
Plaintiff,

*
v.

Civil Case No.: PWG-16-765

*
CAROLYN V. COLVIN,

*
Defendant.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed this action against Carolyn Colvin, the acting
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration alleging that the denial of his social security
disability insurance ("SSDI") benefit was unconstitutional. Compl. 3-4, ECF No.1; see Supp.,
ECF NO.3. I entered a Memorandum Opinion and an Order dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint on
April 28, 2016, ECF Nos. 4 & 5, and on May 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the April 28, 2016 Order, ECF NO.6.

Because Plaintiff has not stated a

meritorious reason to alter the previous conclusion of the Court, his Motions will be DENIED.
Plaintiff's motion, filed within twenty-eight days of the dismissal order, is a Rule 59(e)
motion to alter or amend a judgment.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); MLC Auto., LLC v. Town a/So.

Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277-80 (4th Cir. 2008).
Although Rule 59(e) does not itself provide a standard under which a
district court may grant a motion to alter or amend a judgment, [the Fourth
Circuit] has previously recognized that there are three grounds for amending an
earlier judgment: (1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law;
(2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error
of law or prevent manifest injustice.

Pacific Ins. Co v. Am. Nat'l Fire. Ins. Co., 148 F.3d. 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998). The Fourth Circuit
has set clear limitations on Rule 59(e) motions and specified that these motions may not be used
"to raise arguments which could have been raised prior to the issuance of the judgment .... " See
id. "In general, 'reconsideration

of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which

should be used sparingly.'" Id. (quoting Wright et aI., Fed. Prac. & Proc.

9

2810.1, at 124). It

"is not a license for a losing party[] to get a 'second bite at the apple.'" Shields v. Shetler, 120
F.R.D. 123, 126 (D. Co. 1988) (cited in Potter v. Potter, 199 F.R.D. 550, 552 n.1 (D. Md.
2001)).
Plaintiff s Motion for Reconsideration constitutes a classic example of seeking a "second
bite at the apple," which, if allowed, would defeat the concept of judicial finality and would
transform motions practice into a never-ending cycle of intra-court review.

He does not argue

that "there has been an intervening change of controlling law, that new evidence has become
available, or that there is a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice."
Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 411 (4th Cir. 2010).

See

Rather, he simply

presents his pleadings for a third time in his Motion for Reconsideration.
Accordingly, it is, this ~
Motion for Reconsideration,

day of

ECF NO.6,

Jl¥,

2016, hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's

IS DENIED.

The Cl

shall mail a copy of this

Memorandum Order to Plaintiff.

lSI
Paul W. Grimm
United States District Judge
dh

2