ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Mary Mayfield's motion for reconsideration, in which she asks this Court to overturn its previous order dismissing all claims against Defendant Gary Evans ("Evans"). Record Document 28. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's motion is
Plaintiff alleged claims against Evans for civil conspiracy, retaliation under § 1981, and hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge under Title VII on the basis of discriminatory and retaliatory events at her job. Record Document 19. The Court dismissed all of Plaintiff's claims against Evans under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Record Document 26. Plaintiff then filed this motion, seeking to vacate the order of the Court, and requesting "reconsideration, rehearing, new trial and/or to alter and amend the ruling of February 6, 2017." Record Document 28, p. 1.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a motion for reconsideration, per se.
Rule 54(b) provides that, in a case involving multiple claims or multiple parties, any order that "adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties . . . may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Under Rule 54(b), "the trial court is free to reconsider and reverse its decision for any reason it deems sufficient, even in the absence of new evidence or an intervening change in or clarification of the substantive law."
"Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly."
After a through review of the motion for reconsideration, the complaint, and the original briefs on the motion to dismiss, the Court declines to reconsider its previous order. Plaintiff plainly filed this motion purely because she disagrees with the Court's order, not because there is any new or overlooked legal or factual basis for deciding the issues. She merely presents the same legal and factual arguments upon which she relied in her opposition briefs to the defendant's motion to dismiss and rehashes the same allegations the Court has already considered and rejected as insufficient to state a claim. Accordingly,