Assa'ad-Faltas v. Regional Postal Inspector et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying 9 Motion for Reconsideration re 7 Order dismissing complaint without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 9/13/2012. (eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:12cv463
MARIE ASSA’AD-FALTAS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
Vs.
)
)
REGIONAL POSTAL INSPECTOR, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on pro se plaintiff Marie Assa’ad-Faltas’ Motion
to Reconsider (#9), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Plaintiff filed a
Complaint (#1) on July 27, 2012, which this court dismissed by Order (#7) on August 13,
2012. Under Rule 59(e), a “motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than
28 days after the entry of the judgment.” In this matter, the court’s Judgment was entered
on August 13, and Plaintiff’s motion was not filed until September 11, outside of the 28 days
permitted under Rule 59(e).
Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s failure to file within the time permitted, the district court
has the discretion to grant a Rule 59(e) motion only in very narrow circumstances: “(1) to
accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not
available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Pac. Ins.
Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998). Here, plaintiff claims that
the “clear error” exception applies, based on this court’s “clear confusion,” Mot., p. 1, in its
previous finding that it lacked jurisdiction. This court has reviewed its previous Order and
finds that it is completely consistent with law. Accordingly, the court will deny the relief
sought and reaffirm its earlier Order.

ORDER
Having reconsidered this court’s previous Order (#7), in light of plaintiff’s Rule
59(e) Motion to Reconsider (#9), and finding no basis to alter its decision, the court
REAFFIRMS its earlier Order and DENIES the relief requested by plaintiff.

Signed: September 13, 2012

2