Wells v. SCDF Employees et al

Filing 28

OPINION & ORDER denying 23 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 24 Motion captioned "to shorten time." Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 3/13/2014.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Ray Edward Wells,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCDF Employees,
Warden Larry W. Powers,
Dr. Salvatore Bianco, and
Medical Staff,
Defendants.

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

C/A No. 2:13-3061-TMC
OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court pursuant to a “Motion for Reconsideration” (ECF
No. 23) filed by Plaintiff requesting reconsideration of the Order of the court filed
January 28, 2014 (ECF No. 20), which directed that this action be summarily dismissed
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
Motions to reconsider are not expressly contemplated by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. However, the court will consider the motion as a Rule 59 Motion to
Alter or Amend the Judgment. The Fourth Circuit has held that such a motion should be
granted only for three reasons, to-wit: (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); Hill v.
Braxton, 277 F.3d 701 (4th Cir. 2002). Rule 59 motions may not be used to “relitigate
old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior
to entry of judgment,” Wright, Miller & Kane Federal Practice and Procedure, §2810.1
(2nd Ed.).

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration does not assert any ground or reason which
would justify a modification to the prior Order. Furthermore, the court is unable to
discern any material fact or principal of law that was overlooked or disregarded in the
Order filed January 28, 2014. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF
No. 23) is DENIED. Additionally, as this case is closed, Plaintiff’s motion captioned as
one to shorten time (ECF No. 24) is also DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
March 13, 2014