McFadden v. Stirling et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying 20 Motion to Alter or Amend re 17 Order on Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 8/8/2018.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Bernard McFadden,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Bryan Stirling, Acting Director of South
)
Carolina Department of Corrections, in his )
official capacity, and South Carolina
)
Department of Corrections,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Civil Action No.: 2:15-cv-04144-JMC

ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the court upon Plaintiff Bernard McFadden’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se
Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF No. 20), seeking amendment of the court’s October 30,
2017 Order and Opinion (“Order”) (ECF No. 17), that dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No.
1). For the reasons provided herein, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 20).
I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
On October 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed an action against Defendants under 42 U.S.C §§ 1981
and 1983, alleging that his exclusion from a work release program was in retaliation for previous
litigation and racially motivated. (ECF No. 1.) On February 23, 2016, Magistrate Judge Mary
Gordon Baker issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the court dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 8.) On October 30, 2017, the court issued an Order accepting the
Report and Recommendation and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff then
filed his Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. (ECF No. 20.) This motion is now before the court.

1

II. LEGAL STANDARD
In his motion, Plaintiff explicitly cites Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) as the basis for his Motion to
Alter or Amend Judgment. (ECF No. 20 at 1.) Under Rule 59(e), a court may “alter or amend the
judgment if the movant shows either (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new
evidence that was not available at trial, or (3) that there has been a clear error of law or a manifest
injustice.” Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010); see also Collison
v. Int’l Chem. Workers Union, 34 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir. 1994). The burden is on the moving party
to establish one of these three grounds for relief. Loren Data Corp. v. GXS, Inc., Fed. App’x 275,
285 (4th Cir. 2012). The decision of whether to amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) is within the
discretion of the district court. Hughes v. Bedsole, 48 F.3d 1376, 1382 (4th Cir. 1995). “Rule 59(e)
motions ‘may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that
could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.’” Melendez v. Sebelius, 611 Fed. App’x 762,
764 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n.5 (2008)).
Petitioner is a pro se litigant, as such, the court is required to liberally construe his
arguments. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214
(4th Cir. 2016). A pro se complaint, regardless of how unartfully pled, must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 111 (1976).
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff does not contend in his Rule 59(e) Motion that there has been an intervening
change in the controlling law nor does he present new evidence that was not available prior to the
dismissal of his Complaint. (See ECF No. 20.) Therefore, Plaintiff must demonstrate clear error or
manifest injustice in order to have any grounds for relief. See Robinson, 599 F.3d at 407. In his
Motion, Plaintiff takes issue with the court’s findings that 1) Defendant Stirling was immune from

2

suit in his official capacity under the Eleventh Amendment (id. at ¶ 1); 2) that Plaintiff failed to
state a claim for relief (id. at ¶ 2); and 3) that Plaintiff’s claims were previously adjudicated and
therefore barred from suit (id. at ¶¶ 3-4). However, “a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle for
rearguing the law, raising new arguments, or petitioning a court to change its mind.” Lyles v.
Reynolds, C/A No. 4:14-cv-01063-TMC, 2016 WL 1427324, at *1 (D.S.C. Apr. 12, 2016) (citing
Exxon Shipping Co., 544 U.S. at 485 n.5). After careful review of the Order and record in this case,
the court does not find clear error or manifest injustice. As such, Plaintiff has not met his burden
of establishing a grounds for relief under Rule 59(e).
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the reasons stated above, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment (ECF No. 20).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
August 8, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

3