United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
Jimmy B. K. Curles, Plaintiff,
Sgt. McCarthy, Sgt. Smith, Sgt. Bernard, Ofc. Dejurness, Ofc. Lester Hall, Sgt. Mahoney, Ofc. Shockley, Defendants.
C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court's Order entered March 6,
2019, pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and a letter from Plaintiff. ECF Nos. 94, 95.
Defendants filed a Response in Opposition. ECF No. 96. For
the reasons stated below, the Court denies Plaintiff's
Motion for Reconsideration.
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)).
may argue that he has new evidence that the Court should
consider. In his objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Report, Plaintiff alleged that he had mailed a statement from
Jamell Jackson in support of his allegations to the Court but
it was not received. The Court overruled his objection
finding that he failed to allege that Defendants prevented
him from sending in additional documents and provided no
support for an assertion that he had sent a document that the
Court had not received. Now, for the first time Plaintiff has
provided Jackson's affidavit in support of his claims.
Upon review, the Court finds that this evidence does not
entitle Plaintiff to reconsideration of his case.
initial matter, the affidavit was dated January 25, 2017;
Plaintiff has not explained why this information was not
available until after the Motion for Summary Judgment had
been decided. Moreover, the affidavit does not contain
additional information. Jackson avers that he witnessed
Plaintiff inform eight officers that he had
“issues” with inmate Zach Bragg. ECF No. 94-1 at
2. This is same language used by Plaintiff in his Complaint.
As explained in more detail by the Magistrate Judge,
Plaintiff's allegation that he informed the officers that
he had “issues” with another inmate is
insufficient to put them on notice that Plaintiff was at risk
of serious injury. See ECF No. 79 at 12.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is
denied with respect to this argument.
also generally contends that dismissal of his case would
result in an injustice. Having reviewed Plaintiff's
Motion, the court finds it does it point to any clear legal
error or manifest injustice. Further, Plaintiff fails to
argue that there has been an intervening change in the
controlling law. Therefore, the Court concludes that
reconsideration of its dismissal order is not warranted. For
these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and
supplemental support  is
OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order
pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate