United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division
January 21, 2015
DONALD DUANE SCHAFF, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. No. CR210-6
LISA GODBEY WOOD, Chief District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Movant Donald Schaff's ("Schaff') Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The United States of America filed a Response. Schaff filed a Reply.
"The only grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact." Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Intern., Inc. , 626 F.3d 1327, 1344 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Kellogg , 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999) (internal punctuation omitted). "A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Id . (quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla. , 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005) (alterations omitted).
A review of Schaff's Motion reveals that his Motion is nothing more than a request asking the undersigned to re-examine the previous unfavorable ruling dated August 11, 2014. (Doc. No. 21). Schaff fails to show that the undersigned made a manifest error of law or fact. In his Reply, Schaff contends that his prosecution was a "sham" and that his case was "replete with rampant misconduct[.]" (Doc. No. 25, p. 17). Schaff also submitted articles regarding a former Glynn County Superior Court judge. Schaff fails to assert how these articles support his position. However, to the extent Schaff attempts to connect the allegations of abuse of judicial power in the State court system with this Court and its proceedings, such an attempt fails and is wholly rejected.
Additionally, Schaff fails to show that he could not have presented his contentions previously. In fact, Schaff made many of these same contentions in his original motion and in his Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Schaff's Motion is DENIED. The undersigned's Order dated August 11, 2014, remains the Order of the Court. This case shall remain closed.