Vann v. United States of America et al

Filing 31

ORDER denying 30 MOTION for Reconsideration, filed by Keith Aaron Vann. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 11/30/2017. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Keith Aaron Vann, #91011-111,
Plaintiff,
vs.
United States of America, and
Rick Perkins,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 1:17-1149-HMH-SVH
OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Keith Aaron Vann’s (“Vann”) pro se motion
to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
After consideration, the court denies Vann’s motion.
The court previously adopted the Report and Recommendation and granted Defendants’
motion for summary judgment in an order dated October 30, 2017. (Oct. 30, 2017 Order, ECF
No. 27.) On November 27, 2017, Vann filed the instant motion to alter or amend the judgment.
(Mot. Alter or Amend, ECF No. 30.) This matter is now ripe for consideration.
A motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) may be made on three
grounds: “(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.” Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993). “Rule 59(e) motions
may not be used, however, to raise arguments which could have been raised prior to the issuance
of the judgment . . . .” Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir.

1

1998). “In general reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy
which should be used sparingly.” Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
Upon review, Vann’s motion does not identify any intervening change in controlling law,
new evidence, or clear error of law. Rather, Vann realleges a number of arguments that the
court fully considered in its October 30, 2017 Order. (Oct. 30, 2017 Order, ECF No. 27.) Based
on the foregoing, Vann’s motion is denied.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Vann’s motion to alter or amend, docket number 30, is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
November 30, 2017

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within sixty (60)
days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.

2