Davis v. Morris et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying 5 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 06/12/2015. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(jlk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:15-cv-80-RJC-DSC
ROXIE ANN DAVIS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CHERYL MORRIS,
)
PAM MAY,
)
CONNIE JELLIFFE,
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a Motion for Reconsideration by pro se
Plaintiff Roxie Davis. (Doc. No. 5).
On February 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed the underlying action, bringing state law claims
against Defendants for conversion and tortious inference with contract. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff
essentially complained in her Complaint that Defendants were wrongfully engaged in a state
court eviction proceeding in Mississippi, in which Defendants were attempting to evict tenants
who were living in property that was owned by Plaintiff. In an Order dated March 3, 2015, this
Court dismissed the action without prejudice based on abstention principles under Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). (Doc. No. 3).
On March 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed the pending motion for reconsideration, which is in the
nature of a motion to alter or amend the prior judgment of the Court under Rule 59(e) of the

1

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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. 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 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, Arthur R. Miller & Mary
Kay Kane, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)).
Plaintiff has not shown the existence of the limited circumstances under which a Rule
59(e) motion may be granted. That is, Plaintiff’s motion does not present evidence that was
unavailable when she filed her Complaint, nor does her motion stem from an intervening change
in the applicable law. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not shown that a clear error of law has been
made, or that failure to grant the motion would result in manifest injustice to her. See Hill, 277
F.3d at 708. In sum, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc.
No. 5), is DENIED.

2