Acevedo v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 39

ORDER denying 35 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Timothy M. Cain on 08/01/2014.(bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Amanda Acevedo, on behalf of
Nilo Richard Acevedo,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Carolyn W. Colvin,1 Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 0:12-2137-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff, Amanda Acevedo (“Plaintiff”), brought this action on behalf of the deceased
claimant, Nilo Richard Acevedo (“Acevedo”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial
review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying the
decedent’s claim for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under the Social Security Act (“SSA”).2
On March 6, 2014, the court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and
affirmed the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits. (ECF No. 33). This matter is now
before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). (ECF
No. 35). The Commissioner has filed a response in opposition (ECF No. 36) and Plaintiff filed a
reply (ECF No. 37).
Rule 59(e) provides that a court may alter or amend an earlier judgment:

“(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 (1998). The Fourth Circuit, however, has admonished
1

Carolyn W . Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on February 14, 2013.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Colvin should be substituted for Michael J. Astrue as the
defendant in this action.

2

W hile the matter was pending before the Appeals Council action, Nilo Acevedo passed away and his adult
daughter, Plaintiff Amanda Acevedo, was substituted as the party prosecuting this action.
1

that “reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used
sparingly.” Id. A “Rule 59(e) motion is not intended to allow for reargument of the very issues
that the court has previously decided.” DeLong v. Thompson, 790 F.Supp. 594, 618 (E.D.Va.1991).
The court held that the ALJ did not err in giving little weight to Dr. Godenick’s opinion
about Acevedo’s non-exertional limitations because Dr. Godenick’s opinion was outside her area
of expertise and not supported by objective evidence. In his motion for reconsideration, Acevedo
contends that Dr. Godenick explicitly explained that her opinion was based on a June 2009 MRI
showing Plaintiff suffered from a herniated disc and her visual observation of leg atrophy. (Pl.’s
Mot. for Reconsideration at 3). Acevedo previously addressed this same issue in his objections
and briefs. (Objections at 2-7, ECF No. 30 at 2-7; Pl.’s Brief at 27-31, ECF No. 12 at 27-31, Pl.’s
Response Brief at 4-9, ECF No. 14 at 4- 9).
Because a Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to simply relitigate old matters, Acevedo's
arguments do not meet the requirements for relief under Rule 59(e). Hoskins v. Napolitano, 2012
WL 6136674 *3 (D.Md. 2012) (internal quotation and citation omitted). “[M]ere disagreement
does not support a Rule 59(e) motion” on the ground of clear error of law. United States ex rel.
Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2003).
Acevedo has failed to show any intervening change in controlling law, offer any new
evidence, or show clear error of law or manifest injustice.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Acevedo’s

Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 35) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
August 1, 2014
Anderson, South Carolina

2