From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kinnally v. Marriott International, Inc.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division
Feb 8, 2006
C.A. No. 9:04-cv-02065-PMD-RSC (D.S.C. Feb. 8, 2006)

Opinion

C.A. No. 9:04-cv-02065-PMD-RSC.

February 8, 2006


ORDER


This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Margaret Kinnally's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment and Motion to Supplement to Record.

The court entered an Order dated January 3, 2006, granting Defendant Marriott International, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 84.) Plaintiff asserts that the following should be stricken from the Order's statement of facts: "Kinnally presents no medical opinion that the failure to get the job caused her to suffer a breakdown. Due to her disability, she could not have performed the DOEM job when it was filled in May 2003 or any other work." (Doc. No. 84 at 4.) Because this statement is irrelevant to the court's determination that summary judgment in this case is appropriate, and because Plaintiff does point to some evidence within the voluminous record that could be considered to contradict this statement, the court agrees to strike this portion of the Order. Because this statement is no longer a part of the Order, the court denies Plaintiff's motion to supplement the record with evidence that contradicts the stricken statement.

The court summarily rejects the other request in Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment. Plaintiff asks the court to amend its determination that "MI's interviewing and hiring Osbourne eight months after the rejection of Kinnally is too remote for the court to consider relevant." (Doc. No. 84 at 8, n. 6.) However, Plaintiff does not argue or present any intervening change in law, does not present any new evidence that was not available at the time the court considered this summary judgment motion, does not argue or establish a clear or manifest error of law, and does not present any evidence of manifest injustice. As such, Plaintiff fails to meet the standard required to sustain a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment. FRCP Rule 56(e).

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Record is DENIED and Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment is GRANTED to the extent described above, but is otherwise DENIED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Kinnally v. Marriott International, Inc.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division
Feb 8, 2006
C.A. No. 9:04-cv-02065-PMD-RSC (D.S.C. Feb. 8, 2006)
Case details for

Kinnally v. Marriott International, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MARGARET KINNALLY Plaintiff, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division

Date published: Feb 8, 2006

Citations

C.A. No. 9:04-cv-02065-PMD-RSC (D.S.C. Feb. 8, 2006)