Cuyler v. Department of the Army, No. 3:2008cv03261 - Document 33 (D.S.C. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT, re 29 Judgment, 32 Objections filed by James M Cuyler. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 7/8/2009. (will, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION James M. Cuyler, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Department of the Army, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ ) Case No. 3:08-3261-CMC OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT This matter is before the court on Plaintiff s objections to this court s order and judgment entered June 22, 2009. The court deems these objections to be a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e).1 Rule 59 motions to alter or amend a judgment are disfavored. The Fourth Circuit recognizes only three limited grounds for a district court's grant of a motion under Rule 59(e), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: (1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available earlier; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993). A party's mere disagreement with the court's ruling does not warrant a Rule 59(e) motion. Id. (citing Atkins v. Marathon LeTorneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D. Miss. 1990)). Plaintiff does not suggest any change in controlling law. He does, however, attach documents which the court treats as a proffer of new evidence. That evidence, which consists of documentation relating to his military discharge and subsequent review, does not, however, warrant any modification of this court s earlier decision. In addition, Plaintiff appears to argue that this 1 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not allow for objections to an order and judgment. court s earlier order and judgment were based on a clear error of law or would result in manifest injustice. The court disagrees for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation as adopted in this court s earlier order. See Dkt. Nos. 23 & 28. For the reasons set forth above, the court deems Plaintiff s objections to be a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and denies that motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. S/ Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, South Carolina July 8, 2009

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.