Muhammad v. Geo Care Justcare Department of Mental Health
ORDER denying 21 Motion for Reconsideration, Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on December 6, 2011.(kbos)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Geo Care Justcare Department of Mental
C/A NO. 3:11-2396-CMC-JRM
OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s pro se motion for reconsideration. ECF No.
21 (filed Nov. 30, 2011). As this motion was filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the entry of the
judgment, it is considered under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has interpreted Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to allow the court to alter or amend an earlier judgment: “‘(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.’” Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah
River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148
F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998)). “Whatever may be the purpose of Rule 59(e) it should not be
supposed that it is intended to give an unhappy litigant one additional chance to sway the judge.”
Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625 (S.D. Miss. 1990). Petitioner does not seek
to reopen the judgment based upon the first two circumstances noted above. Therefore, it appears
Petitioner seeks to reopen the judgment to prevent an alleged manifest injustice.
Petitioner presents argument that either could have been or was submitted in his complaint,
and he presents no evidence which leads this court to reconsider its previous ruling.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
December 6, 2011
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?