Buckner v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Filing 23

ORDER denying 20 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 1/19/2018. Sent to Christopher Eugene Buckner via US Mail to 2941-205 Millbrook Woods Dr., Raleigh, NC 27604 (Stouch, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:17-CV-417-BO

CHRISTOPHER E. BUCKNER,
Plaintiff,
v.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. [DE 20].
Defendant has replied [DE 22] and the matter is ripe for ruling. The motion is denied.
Plaintiff's suit, his fourth filed in this district against the United Parcel Service, was
dismissed on November 1, 2017. [DE 18]. Judgment was entered on November 2, 2017. [DE
19]. Plaintiff's claims were dismissed because they were barred by res judicata, preempted by §
301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, did not properly allege a§ 301 violation, and failed
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
A motion to reconsider under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) should be granted in
three limited circumstances: "(1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2)
to account for new evidence not available [previously]; or (3) to correct a clear error oflaw or
prevent manifest injustice." Bogart v. Chapell, 396 F.3d 548, 555 (4th Cir. 2005). The rule is not
designed to allow for "reargument of the very issues that the court has previously decided."

DeLongv. Thompson, 790 F. Supp. 594 (E.D. Va. 1991).
Plaintiff is proceedingpro se and therefore his pleading should be construed liberally.

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). That said, nothing in his motion approaches the
standard for reconsideration laid out by the Fourth Circuit. The law has not changed; new

evidence has not become available; and he presents no plausible argument regarding a clear error
oflaw or of manifest injustice. Accordingly, nothing in plaintiffs motion warrants
reconsideration of this Court's previous holding. The motion [DE 20] is denied.

SO ORDERED, on this

lJ day of January, 2018.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE