Wiles v. Ozmint et al, No. 9:2009cv00634 - Document 128 (D.S.C. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 125 Motion to Alter Judgment. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 4/18/11.(rpol, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION Shaun Wayne Wiles, #284696, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Jon E. Ozmint, Director of the South ) Carolina Department of Corrections; Robert ) Ward, Director for the Division of ) Operations of SCDC; James Sligh, ) Operations Coordinator for the Division ) of Operations of SCDC; Bernard McKie, ) Warden of Kirkland Correctional ) Institution; Dr. Russell Campble, Former ) Medical Director of SCDC; Dr. Michael ) Beinor, Current Medical Director of SCDC; ) and Dr. John Solomon, Mental Health ) Director of SCDC, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) C.A. No. 9:09-634-CMC-BM OPINION and ORDER This matter is before the court on Plaintiff s pro se motion for reconsideration. Dkt. #125 (filed Feb. 28, 2011). Defendants have responded in opposition. 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. 1 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 correct an error of law or prevent an alleged manifest injustice. Plaintiff presents a litany of complaints regarding what he considers errors by this court: failing to give proper consideration to affidavits; misinterpreting and taking out of context certain statements and interposing the court s merely subjective view into the record of this case ; and an improper application of the summary judgment standard. Mot. at 1, 2. Plaintiff s arguments operate to try and convince this court that its analysis of the summary judgment motion was incorrect. Plaintiff has not established any clear error by this court, nor can his subjective view of the merits of the matter ultimately determine whether a manifest injustice occurred when this court granted summary judgment. Plaintiff s motion for reconsideration is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, South Carolina April 18, 2011 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.
