Filed: Mar. 03, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2016
Summary: ORDER R. BRYAN HARWELL , District Judge . Plaintiff Gregory Vincent Smith, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this action against the five above named Defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. See ECF No. 1. On February 2, 2016, the Court issued an order overruling Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, adopting the Report and Recommendation, granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and dismis
Summary: ORDER R. BRYAN HARWELL , District Judge . Plaintiff Gregory Vincent Smith, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this action against the five above named Defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. See ECF No. 1. On February 2, 2016, the Court issued an order overruling Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, adopting the Report and Recommendation, granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and dismiss..
More
ORDER
R. BRYAN HARWELL, District Judge.
Plaintiff Gregory Vincent Smith, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this action against the five above named Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. See ECF No. 1. On February 2, 2016, the Court issued an order overruling Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, adopting the Report and Recommendation, granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and dismissing Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. See ECF No. 89. On February 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's order. See ECF No. 92.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provides for an "extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly." Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). It permits a district court to correct its own errors, thereby "`sparing the parties and the appellate courts the burden of unnecessary appellate proceedings.'" Id. (quoting Russell v. Delco Remy Div. of Gen. Motors Corp., 51 F.3d 746, 749 (7th Cir. 1995)). The Fourth Circuit recognizes three limited grounds for a district court's grant of a Rule 59(e) motion: "(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence that was not available at trial, or (3) that there has been a clear error of law or a manifest injustice." Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010). A party's mere disagreement with the Court's ruling does not support a Rule 59(e) motion, Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1082 (4th Cir. 1993), and a party may not exploit Rule 59(e) to "rehash the same arguments and facts previously presented." Rouse v. Nielsen, 851 F.Supp. 717, 734 (D.S.C. 1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A party cannot use a Rule 59(e) motion to raise an argument it could have raised before entry of the original judgment, or "to argue a case under a novel legal theory that the party had the ability to address in the first instance." Pac. Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at 403.
Plaintiff does not point to a change in the controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error of law. Moreover, in its February 2, 2016 order, the Court thoroughly discussed the fact that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to him at the Kershaw County Detention Center because he did not file timely grievances.1 See ECF No. 89 at 5-6. Plaintiff has failed to set forth an adequate basis for the requested relief,2 and the Court declines to reconsider its February 2, 2016 order. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
