ORDER AND REASONS

SUSIE MORGAN, District Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to vacate.1 The Court will consider this motion as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).2 On October 17, 2016, the Court issued its Order and Reasons3 granting in part and deferring in part Defendants' eight dispositive motions.4 Defendants United Steel Workers Union, Local 750 ("Local Union") and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union ALF-CIO ("USW International") oppose the Plaintiff's motion.5 For the following reasons, the Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

A motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence and cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued."6 A motion for reconsideration, however, "is `not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of [the order].'"7 "The Court is mindful that `[r]econsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.'"8 "When there exists no independent reason for reconsideration other than mere disagreement with a prior order, reconsideration is a waste of judicial time and resources and should not be granted."9

In deciding motions under the Rule 59(e) standards, the courts in this district have considered the following factors:

In his motion, Plaintiff states he has newly discovered evidence demonstrating he was denied meaningful access to the EEOC and that his attempts to exhaust his administrative remedies were futile.11 This newly discovered evidence includes an audio tape recorded during Plaintiff's third visit to the EEOC regarding the status of his charges of discrimination, a letter sent by the EEOC confirming the meetings allegedly demonstrating the Plaintiff executed intake questionnaires on both of his previous visits and a letter from the Social Security Administration declaring the Plaintiff was permanently disabled as of the day after the incidents of November 8, 2011.12

The Fifth Circuit has consistently explained that Rule 59(e) relief based on newly discovered evidence is only appropriate if the movant sufficiently demonstrates the newly discovered evidence was previously unavailable.13 In addition, a Rule 59 motion based on new evidence may be denied if the movant fails to adequately explain why the evidence was not available prior to judgment.14

In his motion, Mr. McNealy does not provide any explanation as to why this evidence could not have been discovered prior to the Court's judgment rendered on October 17, 2016.15 It is clear that Plaintiff was either in possession, or could have been in possession, of this evidence prior to the Court's ruling. First, as stated by Mr. McNealy, the audio recording provided was taped during Mr. McNealy's third visit to the EEOC,16 which occurred on March 19, 2015.17 Second, the letter sent to Mr. McNealy confirming his earlier meetings with the EEOC, and allegedly demonstrating the Plaintiff executed intake questionnaires on both of his previous visits, is dated March 5, 2015.18 Third, the letter sent to Mr. McNealy by the Social Security Administration is dated May 24, 2016.19

IT IS ORDERED. that Plaintiff's motion20 is DENIED21.