Arrington v. Colvin et al

Filing 45

Magistrate Judge Judith G. Dein: ORDER entered denying 40 Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. (Dambrosio, Jolyne)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

MICHAEL D. ARRINGTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 15-10158-JGD

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
December 5, 2016
DEIN, U.S.M.J.
I. INTRODUCTION
On November 3, 2016, this court issued a Memorandum of Decision and Order denying
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Reversing or Remanding the Decision of the Commissioner” and
allowing the “Defendant’s Motion for Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner.” By
this Order, this court upheld the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration that the plaintiff was not disabled during the relevant time period, and was
therefore not entitled to Social Security benefits. This court further entered an Order
dismissing the case in its entirety. The plaintiff has now filed a “Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment” pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), challenging this court’s rulings. For the reasons
detailed herein, the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Docket No. 40) is DENIED.

II. ANALYSIS
The plaintiff has moved to alter or amend the court’s judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59(e). Relief under Rule 59(e) “is granted sparingly,” and is only available in a limited number
of situations. Biltcliffe v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 772 F.3d 925, 930 (1st Cir. 2014). Specifically, as
the First Circuit has explained:
Rule 59(e) allows a party to direct the district court’s attention to newly
discovered material evidence or a manifest error of law or fact and
enables the court to correct its own errors and thus avoid unnecessary
appellate procedures. The rule does not provide a vehicle for a party to
undo its own procedural failures, and it certainly does not allow a party
to introduce new evidence or advance arguments that could and should
have been presented to the district court prior to the judgment.
Aybar v. Crispin-Reyes, 118 F.3d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1997).
The plaintiff’s challenge to this court’s decision does not warrant relief under Rule 59(e).
The plaintiff has simply repeated arguments previously made, and argued that this court
incorrectly decided this case as a matter of law and fact. After consideration of the plaintiff’s
arguments, this court sees no basis to alter or amend its decision.
III. CONCLUSION
The “Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment” (Docket No. 40) is DENIED.

/ s / Judith Gail Dein
______
Judith Gail Dein
United States Magistrate Judge

2