Garcia v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Filing 30

ORDER denying 29 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 2/8/2016.(mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Victor Sanchez Garcia,
Petitioner,
vs.
Warden FCI-Williamsburg,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 5:15-1127-HMH-KDW
OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court on Victor Sanchez Garcia’s (“Garcia”) motion for
reconsideration of the court’s January 13, 2016, order adopting the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West and granting the
Respondent’s motion for summary judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment under
Rule 59(e) may be made on three grounds: “(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.” 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 . . . .” Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire
Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998). “In general reconsideration of a judgment after its
entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” Id. (internal citation and
quotation marks omitted).
Garcia did not file any objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence
of objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, this court is not required

1

to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,
199 (4th Cir. 1983). The court must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). The court adopted the Report and Recommendation
on January 13, 2016. In his motion filed February 2, 2016, Garcia alleges that he submitted
objections on June 18, 2015. On June 18, 2015, Garcia filed a response in opposition to the
Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, not the Report and Recommendation, which was
filed six months later on December 18, 2015. Garcia was notified of the consequences for
failing to file objections in the “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and
Recommendation,” which accompanied the Report and Recommendation. Thus, Garcia failed
to file timely objections.
Further, the court has reviewed Garcia’s arguments raised in his motion and finds that
they are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation, or merely restate his claims. In addition, his arguments are without merit.
Therefore, Garcia’s motion is denied.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Garcia’s motion for reconsideration, docket number 29, is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
February 8, 2016

2

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The Petitioner is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within sixty
(60) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.

3