Opinion
C.A. No. 4:07-3147-HMH-TER.
May 8, 2008
OPINION ORDER
This matter is before the court on Randy Rhyne's ("Rhyne") pro se motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to alter or amend the court's April 29, 2008, order ("April Order") adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and granting the Respondent's motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies Rhyne's motion.
A motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) may be made on three grounds: "(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." Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993). "Rule 59(e) motions may not be used, however, to raise arguments which could have been raised prior to the issuance of the judgment. . . ." Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998). "In general reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly." Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
In his motion, Rhyne reasserts the allegations made in his original petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and presents no new facts or evidence which alter the court's original findings in the April Order. Therefore, Rhyne's motion is denied.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Rhyne's motion to alter or amend judgment, docket number 54, is denied.