Guess v. Adams et al

Filing 42

OPINION AND ORDER denying 39 Motion to Alter Judgment; denying 39 Motion for Reconsideration Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 1/28/2016.(mdea )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Thurmond R. Guess, Sr.

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
David Adams, as Richland County Treasurer;
)
Shirley S. Tapp,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________ )

C/A NO. 3:15-657-CMC-PJG

OPINION and ORDER

This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant
to Rule 59(e). ECF No. 39.
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)). “Mere disagreement does not support a Rule 59(e) motion.” Id.
(quoting Hutchinson v. Stanton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1082 (4th Cir. 1993)).
Petitioner’s motion consists of nine bare-bones allegations that this court’s ruling violated
various rules, statutes, cases, and Constitutional Amendments. ECF No. 39. None of these nine
points contains any argument or explanation of how these standards were violated. Further, the
Motion contains no argument as to the Rule 59(e) requirements needed to justify an alteration or
amendment to this court’s Order.

Petitioner’s one-page Reply contains only conclusory allegations with no facts cited in
support. ECF No. 41. Attached to Petitioner’s Reply are various documents related to his state
court action and action in this court. However, Petitioner’s Reply does not enumerate how these
documents support the allegations in his Reply. Neither Petitioner’s Motion nor Reply contains
any explanation or argument regarding how his allegations contained within meet the standard for
altering or amending the earlier judgment.
Petitioner has not made the showing required to meet the threshold for grant of a Motion
to Alter or Amend under Rule 59(e). Therefore, Petitioner’s motion to alter or amend is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
January 28, 2016

2