WILSON v. WARDEN, KIRKLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

C/A No. 5:16-cv-3910-JFA.

Alexander Bernard Wilson, Jr., Petitioner, v. Warden, Kirkland Correctional Institution, Respondent.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus (General)
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Alexander Bernard Wilson, Jr., Petitioner, Pro Se.


ORDER

JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's motion "to reconsider it ruling by rejection of the Magistrate Judge Recommendation." (ECF No. 32)(errors in original). As motions to reconsider are not expressly contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court will treat this motion exclusively as a Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment.

Motions under Rule 59(e) are not to be made lightly: "[R]econsideration of a judgement after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly." Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing 11 Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, at 124 (2d ed. 1995)). The Fourth Circuit has held such a motion should be granted for only three reasons: (1) to follow 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 prevent manifest injustice." Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993). Rule 59(e) motions "may not be used to make arguments that could have been made before the judgment was entered." Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 708 (4th Cir. 2002). Nor are they opportunities to relitigate issues already ruled upon. Pac. Ins. Co., at 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (quoting Wright et al., supra, § 2810.1, at 127-28).

Having reviewed the pleadings related to this motion, the Court finds oral argument would not aid in its decision-making process1. The motion does not assert a change in controlling law, nor present new evidence. Additionally, the motion fails to point out a clear legal error within the Order adopting the Report and Recommendation and dismissing this case. (ECF No. 28). The motion only asserts that Petitioner objects to "the Order of U.S. District Joseph F. Anderson Jr. on 03/21/17." (ECF No. 32)(errors in original). The instant motion is essentially an attempt to reargue issues already fully briefed, argued, and decided by this Court. The Court understands that Petitioner may disagree with this Court's ruling. Nevertheless, an appeal to the Fourth Circuit after entry of judgment is the proper method for seeking review of the aggrieving ruling.

For the above reasons, the motion to alter or amend the judgment is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Hearings on motions may be ordered by the court in its discretion and motions may be determined without a hearing. Local Civ. Rule 7.08 (D.S.C.).

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases