Bagley v. SC Department of Probation Parole and Pardon Services et al
ORDER denying 54 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 55 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 10/22/2012.(mcot, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Bernard Bagley, # 17851
Cecilia Reynolds, Warden KCI,
C/A No.: 5:11-cv-2664-TLW-KDW
On December 5, 2011 Cecilia Reynolds (“Respondent”) filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Doc. #15). The Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation on July 19,
2012, recommending the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted because
Petitioner’s claims are procedurally barred, and even if Petitioner’s claims are considered on the
merits, Petitioner is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus from this Court. (Doc. #46). On
August 22, 2012, this Court accepted the Report, granted the Respondent’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, and denied a Certificate of Appealability. (Doc. # 51).
This matter is now before the Court for consideration of Petitioner’s Motion to Alter or
Amend filed on September 21, 2012 and docketed as a Motion for Reconsideration. The
Petitioner asserts his case should have been “dismissed without prejudice.” (Doc. # 54).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) governs motions to alter or amend a judgment;
however, the rule does not provide a standard under which a District Court may grant such
motions. The Fourth Circuit has articulated “three grounds for amending 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.” Pac. Ins. Co.
v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing EEOC v. Lockheed Martin
Corp., 116 F.3d 110, 112 (4th Cir. 1997); Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir.
1993)). “Rule 59(e) motions may not be used, however, to raise arguments which could have
been raised prior to the issuance of the judgment, nor may they be used to argue a case under a
novel legal theory that the party had the ability to address in the first instance.” Pac. Ins. Co., 148
F.3d at 403 (internal citations omitted). “Similarly, if a party relies on newly discovered evidence
in its Rule 59(e) motion, the party must produce a legitimate justification for not presenting the
evidence during the earlier proceeding.” Id. (citing Small v. Hunt, 98 F.3d 789, 798 (4th Cir.
1996)). Rule 59(e) provides an “extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.” Id.
(internal citation omitted).
Based upon the undersigned’s review of the record in this case, the Petitioner fails to
show any intervening change in controlling law, account for any new evidence, or show clear
error of law or manifest injustice. Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider made pursuant to
Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is DENIED. (Doc. # 54). To the extent that
the Petitioner is requesting reconsideration of the Court’s previous order denying a Certificate of
Appealability, the Petitioner’s Motion is DENIED. (Doc. # 55).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
United States District Judge
October 22, 2012
Florence, South Carolina
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?