Clinton et al v. Johnson et al

Filing 159

ORDER denying 155 Motion for Reconsideration Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 11/6/2014 (ECW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
J. PAUL CLINTON and
STOKES and CLINTON, P.C.
VS.

PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-cv-871(DCB)(MTP)

W. RICHARD JOHNSON, SR.;
DAVID M. SESSUMS;
VARNER, PARKER & SESSUMS, P.A.;
and TAMRA WARNOCK

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the plaintiffs’ Motion to
Reconsider Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(docket entry 155). Having carefully considered the motion and the
defendants’

response,

the

memoranda

of

the

parties

and

the

applicable law, and being fully advised in the premises, the Court
finds as follows:
Because the plaintiffs’ motion was filed within 28 days of
entry of judgment, it is construed as a Rule 59(e) motion “to alter
or amend judgment.”

See Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works,

910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1990); Fed.R.Civ.P. 59.

The major

grounds justifying reconsideration are “an intervening change of
controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or a need to
correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”

18 C.

Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 4478
at 790.
The Court found that the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs

was insufficient, as a matter of law, to create a genuine issue of
material fact. Plaintiffs neither cite to an intervening change of
controlling law, nor produce any new evidence.

They contend that

the Court’s grant of summary judgment constitutes clear error;
however, they cite no authority to support their asserted grounds,
but merely re-cycle their arguments against the original summary
judgment motion.

Because the plaintiffs’ arguments were contained

in their initial briefs and were fully considered by the Court, the
Court finds that the plaintiffs cannot satisfy the requirements of
Rule 59 and their motion must be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider
Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (docket
entry 155) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 6th day of November, 2014.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2