United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Western Division
Michael T. Parker, United States Magistrate Judge.
MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Objection 
to the Court's Order and Opinion which is liberally
construed as a Motion to Alter or Amend the
Judgment. The Court, having considered the motion
and the applicable law, finds that the Motion  should be
September 12, 2017, the Court entered an Opinion and Order
 on the Motions for Summary Judgment 
filed by the Defendants. This Order  dismissed all the
remaining claims and a Final Judgment  dismissing this
case was entered. On September 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed the
instant motion .
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provides as follows: “A
motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later
than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). This Court has “considerable
discretion” in deciding whether to grant a motion filed
under Rule 59(e). See Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning
Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993). However, granting
a motion for reconsideration “is an extraordinary
remedy and should be used sparingly.” In re
Pequeno, 240 F. App'x 634, 636 (5th Cir. 2007)
(quoting Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473,
477 (5th Cir. 2004)).
Fifth Circuit has held that a Rule 59(e) motion "serves
the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest
errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence" and "is not the proper vehicle for
rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could
have been offered or raised before the entry of
judgment." Knight v. Kellogg Brown & Root
Inc., 333 Fed.Appx. 1, 8 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478-79 (5th
Cir.2004)). A motion to reconsider under Rule 59(e) is not
“intended to give an unhappy litigant one additional
chance to sway the judge[, ]” McDonald v. Entergy
Operations, Inc., No. 5:03cv241BN, 2005 WL 1528611, at
*1 (S.D.Miss. 2005) (citations omitted), and its purpose
“is not to re-debate the merits of a particular
motion.” W.C. Bulley v. Fidelity Financial Servs.
Of Miss., Inc., No. 3:00cv522-BN, 2000 WL 1349184, at *3
(S.D.Miss. Sept. 8, 2000). Indeed, “[i]f a party is
allowed to address a court's reasons as to why a motion
was or was not granted, it would render the entire briefing
process irrelevant and lead to endless motions to
are only three grounds for which this Court may grant a
motion to alter or amend under Rule 59(e): “(1) an
intervening change in controlling law, (2) the availability
of new evidence not previously available, and (3) the need to
correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest
injustice.” W.C. Bulley, 2000 WL 1349184, at
*2 (citations omitted). If one of these three grounds is not
present, the court must deny the motion. Id. at *3.
has cited to no change in controlling law or clear error of
law. Further, Plaintiff has not submitted any new evidence,
but merely rehashes the arguments set forth in his previous
filings. He also argues that the court did not rule
on his motion for summary judgment; however, Plaintiff did
not file such a motion in this case. Thus, Plaintiff is not
entitled to relief from the Court's Order  and
Judgment  under Rule 59(e).
Objection  to the Court's Order and Opinion construed
as a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment is DENIED. If
Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the Court's rulings, he
may appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4.
 Plaintiff asks for relief from this
Court's order and opinion. See  at
Plaintiff once again argues that he did
not receive certain discovery which he refers to as
“undisclosed evidence.” See  at 1.
However, this issue has been addressed ...