Gilyard et al v. Benson et al, No. 3:2012cv01336 - Document 93 (D.S.C. 2013)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER denying 88 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 12/3/2013.(cbru, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Tracey Bernard Gilyard and Tiffany Adams, ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) Randy Benson, individually, E. Shaw, ) individually, and Richland County Sheriff s ) Department, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) C/A NO. 3:12-1336-CMC OPINION and ORDER This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 88. Defendants have responded in opposition and the matter is ripe for consideration.1 The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has interpreted Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to allow the court to alter or amend an earlier judgment: (1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998)). Whatever may be the purpose of Rule 59(e) it should not be supposed that it is intended to give an unhappy litigant one additional chance to sway the judge. Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625 (S.D. Miss. 1990). 1 On December 2, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an untimely reply to Defendants response. ECF No. 92. See D.S.C. Local Civil Rule 7.07 (replies, if filed, are due seven (7) days after service of response). 1 Plaintiffs contend that any objective, reasonable officer would have known the dangers associated with using a taser on a subject on an asphalt surface. Mot. at 1-2 (ECF No. 88). Plaintiffs go on to reassert their argument that another type of force should have been used on Plaintiff Gilyard instead of the taser gun. This argument is, in essence, an attempt by an unhappy litigant to sway the court. For the same reasons outlined in the Opinion and Order granting summary judgment to Defendants, see ECF No. 86 (filed Oct. 2, 2013), Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, South Carolina December 3, 2013 2
]]>
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.
