FALCONER v. LeHIGH HANSON, INC., 4:11-CV-373. (2013)
Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
Number: infdco20130809675
Visitors: 9
Filed: Aug. 07, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 07, 2013
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MELINDA HARMON, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Gareth Falconer's Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 23) the Court's dismissal of his case (Docs. 15, 16). Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for a "motion for reconsideration," where, as here, a motion denominated as such is filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment, it is treated as a Rule 59(e) "motion to alter or amend a judgment." Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MELINDA HARMON, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Gareth Falconer's Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 23) the Court's dismissal of his case (Docs. 15, 16). Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for a "motion for reconsideration," where, as here, a motion denominated as such is filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment, it is treated as a Rule 59(e) "motion to alter or amend a judgment." Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma,..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MELINDA HARMON, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Gareth Falconer's Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 23) the Court's dismissal of his case (Docs. 15, 16). Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for a "motion for reconsideration," where, as here, a motion denominated as such is filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment, it is treated as a Rule 59(e) "motion to alter or amend a judgment." Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 n.2 (5th Cir. 2012). In order to succeed, such a motion "must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence." Rosenblatt v. United Way of Greater Hous., 607 F.3d 413, 419 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Falconer's motion does neither; instead, it simply restates his earlier arguments, adding that the Court's opinion is "inaccurate" and "not well-founded." (Doc. 23 at 2, 6). This is insufficient to even approach the minimum standard for a motion to alter or amend a judgment. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 23) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
