Opinion
19-CV-212-SMY
04-18-2023
FREDERICK GOINGS #M36022, Plaintiff, v. KENT E. BROOKMAN, et al, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge.
On March 23, 2023, the Court entered an order granting summary judgment with respect to Counts 3, 4, and 5, and denying it with respect to Count 1 (Doc. 144). Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 (Doc. 145).
Under Rule 59(e), the Court may alter or amend its judgment if the movant “clearly establish[es] (1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment.” Blue v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 698 F.3d 587, 598 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006)). Relief sought under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remed[y] reserved for the exceptional case.” Foster v. DeLuca, 545 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2008).
Motions for reconsideration are not appropriate vehicles for re-litigating arguments the Court previously rejected or for arguing issues or presenting evidence that could have been raised during the pendency of the motion presently under reconsideration. Sigworth v. City of Aurora, 487 F.3d 506, 512 (7th Cir. 2007). In other words, a proper motion to reconsider does more than take umbrage and restate the arguments that were initially rejected. County of McHenry v. Ins. Co. of the West, 438 F.3d 813, 819 (7th Cir. 2006).
Here, Plaintiff primarily reiterates arguments he made in response to the summary judgment motion. He does not present newly discovered evidence or establish that the Court made a manifest error of law or fact. Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 145) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.