Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-0875 (PLF).
July 1, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On March 31, 2004, the Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment and entered judgment for defendant. This matter now is before the Court for consideration of plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the March 31 Opinion and Order brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will not be granted unless there is an "intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citingNational Trust v. Department of State, 834 F.Supp. 453, 455 (D.D.C. 1993), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds sub nom. Sheridan Kalorama Historical Ass'n v. Christopher, 49 F.3d 750 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). Rule 59(e) motions are "not simply an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled." State of New York v. United States of America, 880 F. Supp. 37, 38 (D.D.C. 1995) (three judge panel) ("[A] motion to reconsider must establish more than simply the defendant's continued belief that the Court's decision was erroneous."). Whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is committed to the discretion of the trial court. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d at 1208.
Upon consideration of the parties' briefs and the Opinion and Order of March 31, 2004, the Court concludes, for the reasons stated in defendant's opposition brief, that plaintiff has failed to meet his burden under Rule 59. See Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration at 2-5. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [41-1] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.