OPINION & ORDER

HENRY M. HERLONG, JR., Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Keith Aaron Vann's ("Vann") pro se motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After consideration, the court denies Vann's motion.

The court previously adopted the Report and Recommendation and granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment in an order dated October 30, 2017. (Oct. 30, 2017 Order, ECF No. 27.) On November 27, 2017, Vann filed the instant motion to alter or amend the judgment. (Mot. Alter or Amend, ECF No. 30.) This matter is now ripe for consideration.

A motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) may be made on three grounds: "(1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993). "Rule 59(e) motions may not be used, however, to raise arguments which could have been raised prior to the issuance of the judgment . . . ." Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998). "In general reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly." Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

Upon review, Vann's motion does not identify any intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or clear error of law. Rather, Vann realleges a number of arguments that the court fully considered in its October 30, 2017 Order. (Oct. 30, 2017 Order, ECF No. 27.) Based on the foregoing, Vann's motion is denied.

Therefore, it is

ORDERED that Vann's motion to alter or amend, docket number 30, is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.