United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division
RANDAL HALL, CHIEF JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the
Court's March 5, 2019 Order (Doc. 26) and corresponding
Clerk's Judgment (Doc. 27). (Doc. 28.) The facts of this
case are presented in United States Magistrate Judge Brian K.
Epps's February 5, 2019 Report and Recommendation. (R.
& R., Doc. 21, at 1-3.) Magistrate Judge Epps recommended
dismissing Plaintiff's case for failure to state a claim
and denying Plaintiff's emergency protective order.
(Id. at 5-7.) In the March 5, 2019 Order, the Court
adopted Magistrate Judge Epps's Report and
Recommendation. (Mar. 5, 2019 Order, Doc. 26.) On March 18,
2019, Plaintiff filed the present motion to reconsider the
March 5, 2019 Order. (Mot. to Recons., Doc. 28.)
of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy, to be
employed sparingly." Armbuster v. Rosenbloom,
No. 1:15-cv-114, 2016 WL 1441467, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 11,
2016) (citation and internal quotation marks); Spellman
v. Haley, No. 97-T-640-N, 2004 WL 866837, at *2 (M.D.
Ala. Feb. 22, 2002) ("[L]itigants should not use motions
to reconsider as a knee-jerk reaction to an adverse
ruling."). Because it "is not an appeal, ... it is
improper on a motion for reconsideration to ask the Court to
rethink what the Court has already thought through - rightly
or wrongly." Armbuster, 2016 WL 1441467, at *1
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). It is well
established that "additional facts and arguments that
should have been raised in the first instance are not
appropriate grounds for a motion for reconsideration."
Gougler v. Sirius Prods., Inc., 370 F.Supp.2d 1185,
1189 (S.D. Ala. 2005) (citation omitted); see also Am.
Home Assurance Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assocs., Inc.,
763 F.2d 1237, 1239 (11th Cir. 1985) (cautioning against use
of motion to reconsider to afford a litigant "two bites
at the apple"); Rossi v. Troy State Univ., 330
F.Supp.2d 1240, 1249-50 (M.D. Ala. 2002) (denying motion to
reconsider where plaintiff failed to submit evidence prior to
entry of order and failed to show good cause for the
omission). Furthermore, "the moving party must set forth
facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the
court to reverse its prior decision." Burger King
Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 181 F.Supp.2d 1366,
1369 (S.D. Fla. 2002). And, ultimately, "the decision to
grant a motion for reconsideration *is committed to the sound
discretion of the district judge.'" Townsend v.
Gray, 505 Fed.Appx. 916, 917 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting
Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchasers Council v.
Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 806 (11th Cir. 1993)).
may reconsider a final order or judgment under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60. Plaintiff fails to note under
which rule he brings this motion for reconsideration; thus,
it is up to the Court to determine. Simply put, "if a
motion is filed within twenty-eight days of judgment, the
motion should be analyzed under Rule 59." Brown v.
Spells, No. 7:11-cv-91 (HL), 2011 WL 4543905, at *1
(M.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2011); accord Mahone v. Ray, 326
F.3d 1176, 1177 n.l (11th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff filed his
motion to reconsider thirteen days following the challenged
order; thus, the Court analyzes Plaintiff's motion under
Rule 59(e). Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is justified
only when there is: "(1) an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3)
the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice." Schiefer v. United States, No.
CV206-206, 2007 WL 2071264, at *2 (S.D. Ga. July 19, 2007).
Rule 59(e) "cannot be used to relitigate old matters,
raise argument or present evidence that could have been
raised prior to the entry of judgment." Arthur v.
King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation
s case was dismissed for stating only conclusory allegations
in his complaint and "offer[ing] no evidence connecting
Defendants to any constitutional violation, only his
beliefs." (R. & R., at 5-6; see also Mar.
5, 2019 Order, at 5.) Here, Plaintiff offers no new
arguments, facts, or evidence to support the Court
reconsidering its March 5, 2019 Order or Clerk's
Judgment. Plaintiff parrots the same conclusory allegations
as set out in his complaint. (Compare Am. Compl.,
Doc. 17, at 4-5, and R. & R., at 3, 5-6,
with Mot. to Recons., at 3-4.) To the motion to
reconsider, Plaintiff attached a grievance from January 8,
2018. (Doc. 28, at 7.) This grievance, however, was included
in the amended complaint (Doc. 17-1, at 47); thus, it does
not constitute new evidence. See Mays v. U.S. Postal
Serv., 122 F.3d 43, 46 (11th Cir. 1997) ("[P]arties
cannot introduce new evidence post-judgment unless they show
that the evidence was previously unavailable.").
foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration
(Doc. 28) is DENIE ...