Howell v. United States of America

Filing 80

ORDER denying 61 Motion for Leave and MOTION to Alter or Amend, denying 70 Motion for Leave to Amend, denying 71 Motion to Reopen Case and MOTION for Joinder, denying 74 Motion for Leave and MOTION for Hearing, denying 76 Motion to Renew and Amend and denying 79 Motion to Renew and Amend. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 2/29/2016. Copy sent via US Mail to Burl Anderson Howell, 207 Dobbs Drive, La Grange, NC 28551 on 2/29/2016. (Grady, B.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:14-CV-00898-F
BURL ANDERSON HOWELL,
Plaintiff,

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the following motions by Plaintiff Burl Anderson
Howell: Motion for Leave and the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment by Rule 59(e) for
Judgment Under Rule 50(b) [DE-61]; Motion for Leave to Amend [DE-70]; Motion to Reopen
Case and Motion for Joinder [DE-71]; Motion for Leave and Motion for Hearing [DE-76]; AND
Motion to Renew and Amend [DE-79].
Generally, motions for reconsideration are only allowed at the discretion of the court and
only under certain circumstances. See Ga.-Pac. Consumer Prods. v. Von Drehle Corp., 815 F.
Supp. 2d 927, 929 (E.D.N.C. 2011). Those circumstances are typically (1) to correct manifest
errors of law or fact or (2) to consider newly discovered evidence. See id. Motions to reconsider
"are improper if they serve merely to ask the Court 'to rethink what the Court had already
thought through-rightly or wrongly."' See

id. (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan

Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). This also typically requires rejecting new
arguments because "[h]indsight being perfect, any lawyer can construct a new argument to
support a position previously rejected by the court, especially once the court has spelled out its

reasoning in an order." See Wiseman v. First Citizens Bank & Tr. Co., 215 F.R.D. 507, 509
(W.D.N.C. 2003) (quoting Potter v. Potter, 199 F.R.D. 550, 553 (D. Md. 2001)).
Here, each of the pending motions in this case support Mr. Howell's request for
reconsideration of the court's Order ofNovember 24, 2015. That Order dismissed Mr. Howell's
case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the complaint was essentially a request
for judicial review of a VA decision. See Nov. 24, 2015 Order [DE-59]. Mr. Howell argues that
the court misconstrued the substance of his complaint. See, e.g., Mem. in Support [DE-63] at 1.
The court has reviewed Mr. Howell's complaint and is satisfied that it properly characterized the
claim.
Having reviewed the case and considered each of Mr. Howell's filings, the court
concludes that there was no manifest error of law or fact in the November 24, 2015 Order, nor
does Mr. Howell present newly discovered evidence to justify reconsideration of that decision.
Accordingly, each ofthe pending motions in this case-docket entries 61, 70, 71, 74, 76, and
79-are DENIED.
SO ORDERED .

...

This, the ~~day ofFebruary, 2016.

2