United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
C. COGGINS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a habeas corpus action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Pending before the Court are Petitioner's motion to alter
or amend the Court's Order, ECF No. 62, adopting the
Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge, ECF No. 59, and Petitioner's motions to compel,
ECF Nos. 64, 65, 66. Also included in Petitioner's motion
is a request for a certificate of appealability. Id.
Respondent filed a response in opposition to the motions to
compel. ECF No. 67. Having carefully considered the motions,
the response, the record, and the applicable law, it is the
judgment of the Court that Petitioner's motion and his
request for a certificate of appealability are denied and the
motions to compel are moot.
States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett issued a Report
recommending Respondents' amended motion for summary
judgment be granted and the petition be denied. ECF No. 54.
Petitioner filed objections, ECF No. 56. On August 8, 2018,
this Court entered an Order overruling Petitioner's
objections, adopting the Report, granting Respondent's
motion for summary judgment, and denying the petition. ECF
timely filed his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) to alter or amend the Court's Order adopting the
Report and his request for a certificate of appealability.
ECF No. 62.
are only three limited bases for a district court to grant a
Rule 59(e) motion: “(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). A Rule
59(e) motion “may not be used to relitigate old
matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could
have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.”
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5
(2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further,
“mere disagreement [with a district court's ruling]
does not support a Rule 59(e) motion.”
Hutchinson, 994 F.2d at 1082 (citing Atkins v.
Marathon LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D.Miss.
1990)). “In general[, ] 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)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 and 2255
Cases, “[t]he district court must issue or deny a
certificate of appealability when it enters a final order
adverse to the applicant.” For a court to issue a
certificate of appealability, “the applicant [must]
ma[ke] a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
When a district court has decided the constitutional claims
on the merits, a certificate of appealability should issue
where “petitioner [ ] demonstrate[s] that reasonable
jurists would find the district court's assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Ground One, Petitioner asserted that the trial court erred by
instructing the jury that actual knowledge of the presence of
crack cocaine is strong evidence of a defendant's intent
to control its disposition or use. The Court found that
Ground One was not cognizable on federal habeas review. ECF
No. 59 at 3. In his Motion, Petitioner does not address this
finding but alleges error with respect the Court's
citation to another case in this district. ECF No. 62 at 2-3.
The Court denies the Motion with respect to this argument.
Two and Three
Grounds Two and Three, Petitioner raised issues under the
Fourth Amendment. ECF No. 8-4 at 2-3 He stated that he had a
legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises searched
and that the search warrant used was defective on its face
because it failed to state with particularity the premises to
be searched. The Court found that Grounds Two and Three were
barred by Stone v. Powell, 528 U.S. 465 (1976).
Petitioner argues that the Court erred in finding that he had
a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims in state
court. ECF No. 62 at 3-7. Petitioner made essentially the
same arguments in his objections to the Magistrate
Judge's report. He continues to disagree with the state
court's rulings, but fails to explain beyond his own
conclusory allegations how the state court did not have an
opportunity to fully consider his claims. Accordingly,
Petitioner's Motion is denied with respect to Ground Two