ROBERT N. SCOLA, JR., District Judge.
Barbary requests that the Court alter or amend the judgment in this case under Rule 59(e) (ECF No. 15). Because the Motion does not present any ground to support alteration of the Court's Order Adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (ECF No. 12), the Motion will be
"The only grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact. 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." Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations omitted).
Z.K. Marine Inc. v. M/V Archigetis, 808 F.Supp. 1561, 1563 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (Hoeveler, J.) (citation omitted).
Barbary contends that the Court committed manifest errors of law or fact in its determination that Barbary's § 2255 motion in this case is a successive motion for which he had not properly sought permission to file from the Eleventh Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). In support of his argument he points out that his motion for leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion was docketed over two weeks before Judge White issued his R&R in the instant case, and therefore, that the Court's finding that his present § 2255 motion is successive is incorrect. See In Re: Andre Barbary, Case No. 18-12412-F (11th Cir. 2018). However, Barbary also concedes that the Eleventh Circuit subsequently denied his motion for leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion on the merits. Upon review, Barbary's argument lacks merit. Indeed, Barbary filed the instant § 2255 motion almost three weeks before his motion for leave was docketed in the Eleventh Circuit, and thus, he had not obtained the proper certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) prior to filing the instant § 2255 motion—which is properly barred as successive.
Accordingly, after considering the motion, the record, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court