Blake v. MJ Optical, Inc.

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 26 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (JSF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BOBBETTE M. BLAKE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MJ OPTICAL, INC., a Nebraska
corporation,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:14CV317

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

On April 13, 2016, I granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant on
Plaintiff’s claims for gender discrimination, age discrimination, and hostile work
environment based on gender and age. (Filings 24, 25.) On May 11, 2016, Plaintiff
filed a motion (Filing 26) for reconsideration of that judgment, arguing that it was
“based on an erroneous application of the applicable law to the facts in the case.”
(Filing 27 at CM/ECF p. 1.)
“[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ‘do not mention motions for
reconsideration.’” Elder–Keep v. Aksamit, 460 F.3d 979, 984 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting
Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 989 (8th Cir. 1999)). Hence, the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals has “discouraged the use of a self-styled motion to reconsider,” but,
when filed, the court “typically construe[s] such a filing as a Rule 59(e) motion to
alter or amend the judgment or as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment.”
Ackerland v. United States, 633 F.3d 698, 701 (8th Cir. 2011). “[T]he Eighth Circuit
has stated that Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b)(2) are ‘analyzed identically.’” United States
v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 n.3 (8th Cir. 2006).
Motions to reconsider provide “for extraordinary relief which may be granted
only upon an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances.” Jones v. Swanson, 512
F.3d 1045, 1048 (8th Cir. 2008). “Motions for reconsideration serve a limited

function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence.” Arnold v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 627 F.3d 716, 721 (8th Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation and citation omitted).
Here, Plaintiff simply reargues the merits of her claims and asserts that the court
reached erroneous conclusions when applying the law to the facts. Plaintiff has failed
to show exceptional circumstances, manifest errors of law or fact, or the existence of
newly discovered evidence. Because Plaintiff’s arguments are not a proper basis for
a motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff’s motion seeking reconsideration or alteration
of the court’s previous memorandum and order and judgment shall be denied.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Filing 26) is
denied.
DATED this 15th day of June, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

2