ORDER AND REASONS

SUSIE MORGAN, District Judge.

Before the Court is a motion for reconsideration filed by the Plaintiffs.1 On January 20, 2017, various federal officers and agencies filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).2 The Court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to the individual federal officers and agencies, ordered the United States to be substituted as the proper defendant pursuant to the FTCA, and found Plaintiffs failed to allege the exhaustion of an administrative tort claim, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).3 The Plaintiffs then filed the instant motion for reconsideration.4 For the following reasons, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides that "any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties . . . may be revised at any time before the entry of a [final] judgment."5 Although the district court has broad discretion to reconsider an interlocutory order for any reason it deems sufficient,6 this power "is exercised sparingly in order to forestall the perpetual reexamination of orders and the resulting burdens and delays."7

Generally, the courts in this district evaluate a motion to reconsider an interlocutory order under the same standards as those governing a motion to alter or amend a final judgment brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.8 Such a motion "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."9 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].'"10 "The Court is mindful that `[r]econsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.'"11 "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."12

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

Plaintiffs seek relief under factors 1, 2, and 3.14 Plaintiffs, however, present no new evidence to justify reconsideration of the Court's order. Nor do Plaintiffs point to any manifest error of law or fact in the Court's ruling. It is well established that, under the FTCA, the United States is the proper defendant, and this waiver of sovereign immunity does not extend to federal agencies or employees.15 "It is beyond dispute that the United States, and not the responsible agency or employee, is the proper party defendant" in an FTCA suit.16

The law is also clear that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a), no action in tort may be instituted against the United States "unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been denied by the agency in writing."17 Only when the claim has been denied or six months have passed since the administrative claim was filed may a plaintiff bring suit in federal district court on the claim.18 Any failure to comply with the FTCA's administrative exhaustion requirement is a jurisdictional defect.19 "The requirement of exhaustion of administrative review is a jurisdictional requisite to the filing of act action under the FTCA."20 The Plaintiffs have presented no new evidence to show they exhausted an administrative tort claim as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).

Accordingly;

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration21 is DENIED.