Filed: Jul. 03, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 03, 2012
Summary: ORDER KRISTI K. DuBOSE, District Judge. This action is before the Court on the "Objection to the Order to Dismiss" filed by Dennis Roy Reeves (doc. 23). Previously, this Court entered an order and judgment dismissing for lack of jurisdiction Reeves' action against the Department of Veterans Affairs (docs. 22, 21). The Court construes Reeves' objection as a motion for reconsideration. 1 The decision to grant or deny a motion to reconsider is left to the discretion of the trial court. Chapma
Summary: ORDER KRISTI K. DuBOSE, District Judge. This action is before the Court on the "Objection to the Order to Dismiss" filed by Dennis Roy Reeves (doc. 23). Previously, this Court entered an order and judgment dismissing for lack of jurisdiction Reeves' action against the Department of Veterans Affairs (docs. 22, 21). The Court construes Reeves' objection as a motion for reconsideration. 1 The decision to grant or deny a motion to reconsider is left to the discretion of the trial court. Chapman..
More
ORDER
KRISTI K. DuBOSE, District Judge.
This action is before the Court on the "Objection to the Order to Dismiss" filed by Dennis Roy Reeves (doc. 23). Previously, this Court entered an order and judgment dismissing for lack of jurisdiction Reeves' action against the Department of Veterans Affairs (docs. 22, 21). The Court construes Reeves' objection as a motion for reconsideration.1
The decision to grant or deny a motion to reconsider is left to the discretion of the trial court. Chapman v. AI Transportation., 229 F.3d 1012, 1023-24 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). "The three primary grounds that justify reconsideration are: `(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.'" Delaware Valley Floral Group, Inc. v. Shaw Rose Nets, LLC, 597 F.3d 1374, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations omitted); see also Douglas Asphalt Co. v. QORE, Inc., 657 F.3d 1146, 1151-1152 (11th Cir. 2011) ("We note also that many cases recognize that a change in controlling law is one of the core reasons for filing and granting a motion for reconsideration.") (collecting cases). However, motion for reconsideration "cannot be brought solely to relitigate issues already raised in an earlier motion." Harris v. Corrections Corp. of America, 2011 WL 2672553, 1 (11th Cir. July 11, 2011) citing Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005).
Reeves has not presented any evidence of an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence which was not available at the time of the Court's decision, or any clear error or manifest injustice. The objections raised by Reeves in support of his motion to reconsider are substantially similar to objections and arguments previously raised in opposition to the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or as an objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (docs. 12, 16, 19). The Court has already given thorough consideration to the arguments presented and the underlying evidence. Accordingly, the motion to reconsider is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.
