Nolan v. Hamidullah et al

Filing 112

ORDER denying 111 Motion for Reconsideration of 110 Order and/or Amend Findings. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 08/31/2010.(bshr, )

N o l a n v. Hamidullah et al

D o c . 112

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA F L O R E N C E DIVISION M ic h a e l Nolan, ) ) P l a in tif f , ) ) vs. ) ) The United States of America (BOP), ) ) D e f e n d a n t. ) ________________________________ ) C /A No.: 4:07-1141-JFA-TER

ORDER

T h is matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Nolan's "motion to reconsider and/or a m e n d findings." M o tio n s under Rule 59 are not to be made lightly: "[R]econsideration of a previous o rd e r is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and c o n se rv a tio n of judicial resources." 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 59.30[4] (3d ed.). The Fourth Circuit has held such a motion should be granted for only th re e reasons: (1) to follow an intervening change in controlling law; (2) on account of new e v id e n c e; or (3) "to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Hutchinson v . Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993) (emphasis added). "Rule 59(e) permits a court to alter or amend a judgment, but it may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise a rg u m e n ts or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." E x x o n Shipping Co. v. Baker, __U.S.__, 128 S. Ct. 2605, n.5 (2008) (internal citation o m itte d ). "Mere disagreement [with a court's ruling] does not support a Rule 59(e) motion." U .S . ex rel. Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2002)

Dockets.Justia.com

(internal citation omitted). Having reviewed the pleadings related to this motion, the Court finds oral argument w o u ld not aid in its decision-making process. In the view of this Court, the motion presents n eith er new controlling law, nor new evidence, nor points out a clear legal error of this Court -- the motion is basically an attempt to reargue issues already fully briefed and decided by th is Court. The Court understands that Plaintiff Nolan may disagree with this Court's ruling. N e v e rth e le ss , an appeal to the Fourth Circuit after entry of judgment is the proper method f o r seeking review of the aggrieving ruling. F o r the above reasons, the motion to alter or amend the judgment is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.

A u g u st 31, 2010 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina

J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge