Barnes v. Sam's east Wholesale club # 8220 et al

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Glen E. Conrad on 0911/2015. (ssm)

...
CLERK's OFFICE U.3 n.:sr. C0U
.

?

AT ROANOk c:, v.~ '
::·,
FILED
'

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
-

SHIRLEY A. BARNES,
Plaintiff,

v._
SAM'S EAST, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CivilActionNo. 7:15CV00217
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Hon. Glen E. Comad
ChiefUnited States District Judge

Shirley A. Barnes, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action against a
number of defendants, including her former employer, Sam's East, Inc.; her former coworkers,
Nicholas Salhany and Rachel House; and her former attorney, Terry Grimes. On July 16, 2015,
the court sua sponte dismissed Barnes' claims against Grimes, and directed Barnes to respond to a
motion to dismiss filed by Sam's East, Salhany, and House. The court subsequently granted the
J?Otion to dismiss on August 20, 2015, and terminated the case from the court's active docket.
Barnes has now moved to alter or amend the court's prior rulings on her claims against Sam's East,
Salhany, House, and Grimes, pursuant to Rule 59( e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For
the following reasons, the motion will be denied.
"A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted only in three situations: '(1) to accommodate an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account f.or new evidence not available [previously];
or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice."' Mayfield v. Nat' I Ass'n for
Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Zinkand v. Brown, 478
F.3d 634, 637 (4th Cir. 2007)). "It is an extraordinary remedy that should be applied sparingly,"
and only in "exceptional circumstances." Id. The mle "may not be used to relitigate old matters,
or to raise arguments ... that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Exxon

RT

Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n.5 (2008) (internal citation and quotation marks
omitted).
Applying these principles, the court concludes that Barnes is not entitled to relief under
Rule 59(e). To the extent Barnes asks the court to reconsider its rulings on the claims asserted in
her amended complaint, she does not identify any recent change in the controlling law or clear
error which would merit an alteration or amendment to the court's previous opinions and orders.
While the plaintiff may disagree with the court's rulings, "mere disagreement does not support a
Rule 59(e) motion." Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1082 (4th Cir. 1993); see also
Pritchard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 3 F. App'x 52, 53 (4th Cir. 2001) ("When the motion [for
reconsideration] ... merely requests the district court to reconsider a legal issue or to 'change its
mind,' relief is not authorized.") (quoting United States v. Williams, 674 F.2d 310, 312 (4th Cir.
.1982)). To the extent Barnes seeks to assert new claims against Sam's East, Salhany, House, and
Grimes, a Rule 59(e) motion is not the appropriate vehicle for doing so. See Worrell v. Houston
Can! Acad., 287 F. App'x 320, 327 (5th Cir. 2008) ("[A] civil litigant may not use Rule 59( e) to
· raise new claims that could have been raised prior to the district court's entry of a final
judgment."). Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion to alter or amend the court's previous rulings
will be denied.
The Clerk is directed to send certified copies of this memorandum opinion and the
accompanying order to the plaintiff and all counsel of record.
ENTER: This

t r-h4

day of September, 2015.

.

IIA

'1OVt ~Vf--(J

Chief United States District Judge

2