Roach v. South Carolina Department of Correction et al, No. 8:2009cv02155 - Document 91 (D.S.C. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 90 Motion for Reconsideration regarding 87 Order Ruling on Report and Recommendations, filed by Kenneth J Roach. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on January 26, 2011.(ncha, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Roach v. South Carolina Department of Correction et al Doc. 91 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENWOOD DIVISION Kenneth J. Roach, # 283585, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Mr. Day, Employee, Food Service Worker, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ ) C/A NO. 8:09-2155-CMC-BHH OPINION and ORDER This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se motion for rehearing. Dkt. #90 (filed Jan. 18, 2011). As this motion was filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the entry of the judgment, it is considered under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 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). Plaintiff does not seek to reopen the judgment based upon the first two circumstances noted above. Therefore, it appears Plaintiff seeks to reopen the judgment to prevent an alleged manifest injustice. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff presents argument that either could have been or was submitted in his complaint, and he presents no evidence which leads this court to reconsider its previous ruling. Plaintiff’s motion is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, South Carolina January 26, 2011 C:\Documents and Settings\nac60\Desktop\09-2155 order.wpd 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.
