Washington v. Trident Medical Center, LLC

Filing 33

ORDER AND OPINION: There is no basis to reconsider the Courts prior order and opinion dismissing this case. The Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 32). AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 2/16/21.(ltap, )

2:20-cv-00953-RMG

Date Filed 02/16/21

Entry Number 33

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2:20-00953-RMG

Jim Washington,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Trident Medical Center, LLC
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER AND OPINION

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, (Dkt. No. 32). Plaintiff’s
motion is denied.
On January 28, 2021, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Seconded Amended Complaint with
prejudice, denied Plaintiff's motion for certification of interlocutory appeal and denied Plaintiff's
motion to stay. See Order and Opinion, (Dkt. No. 28) (adopting the Report and Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. No. 21), recommending this action dismissed with prejudice).
Plaintiff now moves the Court to reconsider in whole its prior order and opinion. Rule
59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to move to alter or amend a
judgment within twenty-eight days of the judgment’s entry. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “A district
court has the discretion to grant a Rule 59(e) motion only in very narrow circumstances.” Hill v.
Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 708 (4th Cir. 2002). Specifically, the Court may reconsider its prior
order only “(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.”
Collison v. Int’l Chm. Workers Union, 34 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation
marks omitted). However, “[a] Rule 59(e) motion should not be used as an opportunity to rehash
issues already ruled upon because a litigant is displeased with the result.”

-1-

Cooper v.

2:20-cv-00953-RMG

Date Filed 02/16/21

Entry Number 33

Page 2 of 2

Spartanburg Sch. Dist. Seven, No. 7:13-CV-00991-JMC, 2016 WL 7474380, at *2 (D.S.C. Dec.
29, 2016), aff’d sub nom. Cooper v. Spartanburg Cty. Sch. Dist. No 7, 693 F. App’x 218 (4th
Cir. 2017) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff has not identified any change in controlling law or any new evidence not
previously available. Instead, Plaintiff argues that that the Court’s ruling was in clear error.
Plaintiff’s arguments, however, rehash those he already presented to this Court and which this
Court analyzed and rejected. The ruling to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was
not a clear error of law nor was it manifestly unjust. Nor was the Court’s ruling to deny
Plaintiff’s motion for interlocutory appeal and a stay pending that appeal.
Accordingly, there is no basis to reconsider the Court’s prior order and opinion
dismissing this case. The Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 32).
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Judge
February 16, 2021
Charleston, South Carolina

-2-