Opinion
No. 02-2958 B.
April 7, 2006
ORDER DENYING MOTION OF PLAINTIFF TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
Before the Court is the motion of the Plaintiff, Thomas P. Lewis, to alter or amend the judgment of this Court pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule permits the filing of motions to alter or amend a judgment within ten days after entry of judgment.
The purpose of a motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) is to have the court reconsider matters properly encompassed in a decision on the merits. This rule gives the district court the power to rectify its own mistakes . . . Generally, three situations justify a district court altering or amending its 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 to prevent a manifest injustice. It is not designed to give an unhappy litigant an opportunity to relitigate matters already decided, nor is it a substitute for appeal.Sherwood v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am., 290 F.Supp.2d 856, 858 (N.D. Ohio 2003) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). A review of the Plaintiff's motion reveals, however, that it fails to establish any of the three situations enumerated by the Sixth Circuit. Rather, Lewis sets forth therein his disagreement with the Court's application of the law to the facts in this case. Thus, as the motion constitutes merely a rehashing of the arguments previously presented to this Court by which Lewis seeks a second bite at the apple to which he is not entitled under Rule 59(e), the motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.