Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03387-CMA-KLM
11-07-2012
SHERRON L. LEWIS, JR., Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK NA, and DEBRA JOHNSON, in her official and personal capacities, Defendants.
Judge Christine M. Arguello
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND PURSUANT TO RULE 59(e)
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Pursuant to Rule 59, filed on October 10, 2012. (Doc. #3.) On September 17, 2012, this Court adopted and affirmed United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix's Recommendation (Doc. # 28) that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint be denied, and that the separate motions to dismiss filed by the defendants be granted. (Doc. # 31.)
The three main grounds that justify reconsideration of an order are "(1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir.2000). Put simply, a motion to reconsider is appropriate when "the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law." Id.; see also Lacefield v. Big Planet, No. 2:06-CV-844 DB, 2008 WL 2661127, at *1 (D. Utah July 3, 2008) (unpublished) ("[w]hen a motion for reconsideration raises only a party's disagreement with a decision of the Court, that dispute should be dealt with in the normal appellate process" (quotation marks and citations omitted)).
In the instant Motion, Plaintiff does not provide any basis for the Court to reconsider its Order adopting and affirming the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. Rather, Plaintiff asserts that the Court did not address Plaintiff's arguments in its final order of September 20, 2012. (See Doc. # 33.) However, the Order that Plaintiff refers to is the Final Judgment entered by the Clerk of the Court. In the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, which was adopted by this Court, the reasons for the dismissal are plainly set forth. To the extent that Plaintiff disagrees with the Court's decision, that is not reason for the Court to reconsider its Order.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Pursuant to Rule 59 (Doc. # 33) is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge