ORDER AND REASONS

SARAH S. VANCE, District Judge.

Before the Court is plaintiff Dodiyi Williamwest's motion for reconsideration1 and motion for clarification2 of this Court's Order adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations and judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.3

A district court has considerable discretion to grant or to deny a motion for reconsideration. See Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993). A court's reconsideration of an earlier order is an extraordinary remedy, which should be granted sparingly. See Fields v. Pool Offshore, Inc., No. Civ. A. 97-3170, 1998 WL 43217, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 3, 1988), aff'd, 182 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 1999); Bardwell v. George G. Sharp, Inc., Nos. Civ. A. 93-3590, 93-3591, 1995 WL 517120, at *1 (E.D. La. Aug. 30, 1995). The Court must "strike the proper balance" between the need for finality and "the need to render just decisions on the basis of all the facts." Banning, 6 F.3d at 355. To succeed on a motion for reconsideration, a party must "clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence." Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir. 2005) (quoting Pioneer Natural Res. USA, Inc. v. Paper, Allied Indus., Chem. & Energy Workers Int'l Union Local 4-487, 328 F.3d 818, 820 (5th Cir. 2003)).

The Court finds that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration has not established either a manifest error of law or fact or presented newly discovered evidence in support of reconsidering this Court's prior Order and Judgment. Indeed, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration consists of the same arguments raised previously before the Magistrate Judge and this Court. Similarly, plaintiff's motion for clarification points to nothing in the Court's previous order requiring further explanation. Accordingly, plaintiff's motions for reconsideration and clarification are DENIED.