Moore v. United States of America et al

Filing 80

ORDER Denying 75 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and Motion for New Trial. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GREGORY MOORE,
Plaintiff,
vs

Case No: 07-14640
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER
Plaintiff, a federal prisoner at FCI Milan, brought this medical malpractice action
against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. After a bench trial, the
Court held that the on-site doctor at FCI Milan breached the standard of care as to one
of Plaintiff’s claims, but that Plaintiff was not injured by the breach and was not entitled
to damages. Plaintiff now requests in his pro se Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment
and Motion for a New Trial that the Court reverse its ruling. For the reasons stated
below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
“A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment only if
there is: ‘(1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening
change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.’” Henderson v.
Walled Lake Consolidated Schools, 469 F.3d 479, 496 (6th Cir. 2006).
Plaintiff argues that the Court committed a clear error of law by failing to consider
whether he experienced pain and suffering as a result of the doctor’s breach. However,
as Defendant points out, the Court actually considered this issue in depth. See
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, pp. 11-12, §§ 69-78; pp. 16-18, §§ 8-14.

In addition, Plaintiff relies upon Cheese v. United States, 290 F. Appx. 827 (6th
Cir. 2008) for the proposition that he was not required to prove injury in order to recover
damages for pain and suffering. Plaintiff misstates the holding of Cheese. In Cheese, a
patient was wrongfully discharged from the hospital while still in pain. The Court
awarded her damages for the one additional day of pain and suffering she endured as a
result of the wrongful discharge. Here, Plaintiff failed to show that he suffered any
additional pain and suffering as a result of the delay in referring him to an orthopedic
surgeon for his ankle. Cheese is inapplicable.
Plaintiff also attempts to relitigate factual issues which were already decided by
this Court. Rule 59(e) motions are not a means for a party to relitigate, or seek to
reverse a judgement for, matters already decided. The Court’s holding was fully
supported by the evidence at trial.
Plaintiff fails to show that this Court committed a clear error of law in its verdict
against him. His motion is DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: November 17, 2011
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record and Gregory Moore by electronic
means or U.S. Mail on November 17, 2011.
S/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

2