Thomas v. South Carolina, State of

Filing 16

OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's 15 motion to reconsider. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 11/6/2017. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Edgar Thomas,

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-2130-CMC
Plaintiff,

vs.

OPINION AND ORDER

The State of South Carolina,
Defendant.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Edgar Thomas’ pro se motion to
reconsider the court’s Order dismissing his case. ECF No. 15. The challenged judgment, entered
October 3, 2017, was based on the Opinion and Order adopting the Report and Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge dismissing the action without prejudice. ECF Nos. 7 (Report), 12 (Opinion
and Order), 13 (Judgment).
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)). “Rule 59(e) motions may not be used, however, to raise arguments
which could have been raised prior to the issuance of judgment, nor may they be used to argue a
case under a novel theory that the party had the ability to address in the first instance.” Pac. Ins.
Co., 148 F.3d at 403. Relief under Rule 59(e) is “an extraordinary remedy which should be used
sparingly.” Id. (internal marks omitted). “Mere disagreement does not support a Rule 59(e)

motion.” Becker, 305 F.3d at 290 (quoting Hutchinson v. Stanton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1082 (4th Cir.
1993)).
Plaintiff’s initial filing was dismissed because he requested removal of a state criminal
action to this court but did not meet the statutory requirements to do so. Nothing in Plaintiff’s
instant motion alters this conclusion. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider (ECF No. 15) is
denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
November 6, 2017

2