United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
ORDER AND OPINION
matter is before the court upon Plaintiff Odis Dwayne
Simonds's (“Plaintiff”) Motion for
Reconsideration. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff seeks review of
the court's October 10, 2018 Order (“October
Order”) accepting the Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge
(“Magistrate Judge”) and dismissing his Complaint
with prejudice. (ECF No. 12.) For the reasons stated herein,
the court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration (ECF No. 16).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
court adopts its prior recitation of the facts from its
October Order. (ECF No. 13.) Procedurally, on December 8,
2017, acting pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) for the District of South Carolina,
the Magistrate Judge issued a Report. (ECF No. 8.) The
Magistrate Judge recommended that the court dismiss
Plaintiff's action, with prejudice, because Defendants
are immune from suit. (Id. at 3.) Pursuant to the
Magistrate Judge's Report, Plaintiff had until December
30, 2017, to file an Objection to the Report. (ECF No.
8.) Plaintiff timely filed an Objection to the
Report. (ECF No. 10.) On October 10, 2018, the court accepted
the Report and dismissed the Complaint with prejudice.
(Id. at 4.) On October 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed a
Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 16).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a court may
“alter or amend [a] judgment if the movant shows either
(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new
evidence that was not available at trial, or (3) that there
has been a clear error of law or manifest injustice.”
Robinson, 599 F.3d at 407 (citation omitted). It is
the moving party's burden to establish one of these three
grounds in order to obtain relief under Rule 59(e). Loren
Data Corp. v. GXS, Inc., 501 Fed.Appx. 275, 285 (4th
Cir. 2012). The decision whether to reconsider an order
pursuant to Rule 59(e) is within the discretion of the
district court. See Hughes v. Bedsole, 48 F.3d 1376,
1382 (4th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, “reconsideration of
a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which
should be used sparingly.” Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am.
Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir.
1998) (citation omitted).
the court is required to interpret pro se documents
liberally and will hold those documents to a less stringent
standard than those drafted by attorneys. See
Gordon, 574 F.2d at 1151; see also Hardin v. United
States, C/A No. 7:12-cv-0118-GRA, 2012 WL 3945314, at *1
(D.S.C. Sept. 10, 2012).
court construes Plaintiff's Motion only under Rule 59(e)
and analyzes it under the above legal standards.
Robinson, 599 F.3d at 412 (holding that a district
court should only analyze a motion under Rule 59(e) when that
motion is filed under both Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b)). In
Plaintiffs Motion, there is not a suggestion about an
intervening change in the controlling law. (ECF No. 16.) Nor
does Plaintiff s Motion allege that there is new evidence
that was not previously available. (Id.) Thus,
Plaintiffs Motion may only be granted in the event that there
is “a clear error of law or manifest injustice.”
Robinson, 599 F.3d. at 407. Plaintiffs Motion does
not allege a clear error of law or manifest injustice. (ECF
No. 16.) Plaintiff states he disagrees with the finding of
the court but does not allege any basis for that disagreement
that would meet the requirements of Rule 59(e).
(Id.) Further, Plaintiff does not assert any
disagreement with the court's finding that Defendants are
immune from the suit. (See id.) As such, the court
stands by the ruling in its October Order that Defendants are
immune from the suit (ECF No. 16).
careful consideration of Plaintiff s arguments, and for the
reasons set forth above, the court DENIES
Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 16).
IS SO ORDERED.
 Plaintiff's Motion does not cite
to a specific rule under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, but the Motion does state that he objects to
“the findings of the Court basing you're judgment
using a case ‘Review & Report.'” (ECF No.
16 at 1.) Therefore, the court construes Plaintiff's
Motion as a Motion for Reconsideration. As such, the court
will liberally construe Plaintiff's Motion as only
arising under Rule 59(e). Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d
1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Moreover, even if Plaintiff
sought to invoke Rule 60(b) with Rule 59(e), the court is
limited to only analyzing the Motion ...