Sherrod v. Parsons et al

Filing 30

ORDER denying 25 MOTION for Reconsideration re 23 Order filed by Marion Lamont Sherrod. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 10/20/16. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(clc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:15-cv-00068-FDW
MARION LAMONT SHERROD,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
LAWRENCE PARSONS;
)
JEFFREY WALL;
)
KIERNAN SHANAHAN;
)
K. GOODWIN, Correctional Officer;
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the
Order finding that his notice of appeal from the order dismissing his pro se civil rights complaint
was not timely filed. (Doc. No. 23).
With regard to motions to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e), the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has stated: “A 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 to prevent manifest injustice.’” Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 708 (4th
Cir. 2002) (quoting Collison v. Int’l Chem. Workers Union, 34 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 1994)).
Furthermore, “Rule 59(e) motions may not be used to make arguments that could have been
made before the judgment was entered.” Id. (internal citation omitted). Indeed, the circumstances
under which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted are so limited that “[c]ommentators observe
‘because of the narrow purposes for which they are intended, Rule 59(e) motions typically are
1

denied.’” Woodrum v. Thomas Mem’l Hosp. Found., Inc., 186 F.R.D. 350, 351 (S.D. W. Va.
1999) (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed.
1995)).
Petitioner has not shown the existence of the limited circumstances under which a Rule
59(e) motion may be granted.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is
DENIED. (Doc. No. 25).
SO ORDERED.
Signed: October 20, 2016

2