United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Aiken Division
Anthony D. Williams, Plaintiff,
Mrs. Bennett, Defendant.
C. Coggins, Jr., United States District Judge.
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the
Court's Order, ECF No. 176, adopting in part and
declining to adopt in part the Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) of the United States Magistrate Judge,
ECF No. 171. ECF No. 189. Defendant filed a response in
opposition. ECF No. 197. Having carefully considered the
motions, the response, the record, and the applicable law, it
is the judgment of the Court that Plaintiff's motion is
granted in part, denied in part, and held in abeyance in
States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges issued a Report
recommending Defendant's motion for summary judgment be
granted. ECF No. 171. Plaintiff filed objections. ECF No.
175. On August 30, 2018, this Court entered an Order adopting
in part and declining to adopt in part the recommendation of
the Report; the Court granted summary judgment in favor of
Defendants with respect to all claims except for
Plaintiff's claim for excessive force against Ms.
Bennett. ECF No. 178.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to
seek an alteration or amendment of a previous order of the
court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Under Rule 59(e), a court may
“alter or amend the 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 a manifest injustice.”
Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407
(4th Cir. 2010); see also Collison v. Int'l Chem.
Workers Union, 34 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir. 1994). It is
the moving party's burden to establish one of these three
grounds in order to obtain relief. Loren Data Corp. v.
GXS, Inc., 501 Fed.Appx. 275, 285 (4th Cir. 2012). The
decision whether to reconsider an order under Rule 59(e) is
within the sound discretion of the district court. Hughes
v. Bedsole, 48 F.3d 1376, 1382 (4th Cir. 1995). A motion
to reconsider should not be used as a “vehicle for
rearguing the law, raising new arguments, or petitioning a
court to change its mind.” Lyles v. Reynolds,
C/A No. 4:14-1063-TMC, 2016 WL 1427324, at *1 (D.S.C. Apr.
12, 2016) (citing Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554
U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008)).
Court held a hearing by telephone with respect to whether
Plaintiff should be permitted to conduct limited discovery
regarding his FTCA claims. For the reasons stated in that
hearing, the Court will permit limited discovery of this
issue. Plaintiff's motion is granted with respect to his
request to conduct discovery. The motion is held in abeyance
with respect to his remaining FTCA claims.
Indifference to Serious Medical Needs
asserts that the Court erred in granting summary judgment
with respect to his claim of deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs against Dr. Onuoha. In support of his
argument, Plaintiff attaches the affidavits of six other
inmates and incorporates his prior affidavits. Defendants
argue that these affidavits were not previously offered in
opposition to the motion for summary judgment. While the
Court agrees that they were not offered in Plaintiff's
response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment,
these affidavits were in the record and were considered by
the Court. Accordingly, the Court will address them.
review of the proffered affidavits from inmates other than
Plaintiff, the Court finds that these affidavits do not
require reconsideration of its prior ruling. The affidavits
mostly relate to the death of another inmate, allegedly from
a lack of adequate medical care, or complaints by those
individuals regarding their medical treatment. No. inmate
offers any information with respect to Plaintiff's
respect to Plaintiff's remaining exhibits, the Court
incorporates its prior discussion and the Magistrate
Judge's prior discussion of the medical evidence in the
record. Plaintiff's allegations that he was denied
adequate medical treatment are not supported by the record.
The records indicate that Plaintiff was consistently treated
and was referred to pain management counseling. As previously
stated in this case, Plaintiff is entitled to a certain
minimum level of medical treatment, not his choice of