Harley v. Ward et al

Filing 115

ORDER denying 112 Motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 11/18/2015. (gmil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Thomas Harley,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Larry Cartledge, Warden; Maj. Earley;
)
Cpt. Miller; Lt. Cashwell; Sgt. McCall;
)
C/O Gardner; Harper, HCA; N/P Enloe; )
PRN Dean; State Class Com Director;
)
Lt. Robinson; Plan Wker Ogunsile;
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 0:13-cv-02350-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
various claims related to the conditions of his confinement, in addition to state law claims,
arising largely from an incident that occurred on August 1, 2013. The Court adopted the
Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett and granted summary
judgment in favor of the Defendants on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims and declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. This matter is before the court on
Plaintiff’s [ECF #112] motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc, which this Court will
construe as a motion to alter or amend under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Motions to alter or amend under Rule 59 are not to be made lightly: “[R]econsideration
of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality
and conservation of judicial resources.” 12 JAMES WM . MOORE

ET AL.,

MOORE ’S FEDERAL

PRACTICE ¶ 59.30[4] (3d ed.). The Fourth Circuit has held such a motion should be granted
for only three reasons: (1) to follow an intervening change in controlling law; (2) on account

of new evidence; or (3) “to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.”
Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993) (emphasis added). Rule 59
motions “may not be used to make arguments that could have been made before the judgment
was entered.” Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 708 (4th Cir. 2002) (emphasis added). Nor are
they opportunities to rehash issues already ruled upon because a litigant is displeased with the
result. See Tran v. Tran, 166 F. Supp. 2d 793, 798 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
Plaintiff has not alleged a change in controlling law or new evidence, but appears to
argue that relief from the judgment is necessary to correct a clear error of law or prevent
manifest injustice. Plaintiff argues that a material fact or legal matter was overlooked, the
Court’s Order is in conflict with a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court or another Court of
Appeals, and the proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance.
Plaintiff’s brief, however, essentially restates the facts alleged in his Complaint and his
objections to the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff has failed to identify a clear error of
law or otherwise set forth an adequate basis for relief under Rule 59. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
[Docket Entry #112] motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 18, 2015
Florence, South Carolina

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

2