Mortensen v. Barnhart

Filing 33

ORDER denying 28 Motion for Reconsideration of 27 Order denying Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 12/09/09.(bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

T h o m a s J. Mortenson,

) ) P l a in tif f , ) ) v. ) ) M ic h a el J. Astrue, Commissioner ) o f Social Security, ) ) D e f e n d a n t. ) ________________________________ )

C / A No. 8:07-547-JFA

ORDER

T h is matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion, filed pursuant to Rule 59(a) and (c), to reconsider this court's order of July 29, 2009 denying counsel's motion for attorney's f e e s pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Motions 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 s e rv a tio n of judicial resources." 12 JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., MOORE'S FEDERAL P RACTICE ¶ 59.30[4] (3d ed.). The Fourth Circuit has held such a motion should be granted f o r only three reasons: (1) to follow an intervening change in controlling law; (2) on account o f new evidence; or (3) "to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." H u tc h in s o n v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4 th Cir. 1993) (emphasis added). Rule 59 motions " m a y not be used to make arguments that could have been made before the judgment was e n te re d ." Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 708 (4 th Cir. 2002). Nor are they opportunities to re h a s h issues already ruled upon because a litigant is displeased with the result. See Tran v.

Tran, 166 F. Supp. 2d 793, 798 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). H a v in g 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 the plaintiff 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 July 29, 2009 order is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.

D ec em b er 9, 2009 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina

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