United States District Court, D. Maryland
CORPORAL CARRIER, et al. Defendants
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
MARVIN J. GARBIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court has before it Plaintiff's Motion For This Court To Reconsider Its Decision to Grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on May 4, 2015 Or Schedule a Hearing In The Alternative [Document 68]. The Court finds that neither a response nor a hearing is necessary.
As stated by Judge Ramsey in Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers Co., Inc.:
A motion for reconsideration (or, to alter or amend judgment) made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) may be made for one of three reasons: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law has occurred, (2) evidence not previously available has become available, or (3) it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.
771 F.Supp. 1406, 1419 (D. Md. 1991); see also Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998). Such a motion "cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before [the determination on which reconsideration is sought was] issued." Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986). Stated differently, "'[a] motion to reconsider is not a license to reargue the merits or present new evidence.'" Gray-Hopkins v. Prince George's Cnty., Md., 201 F.Supp.2d 523, 524 (D. Md. 2002) (citation omitted).
The instant Motion meets none of the criteria upon which a properly court may reconsider a prior determination. Moreover, to the extent there is anything in the instant Motion beyond a restatement of the basic arguments already presented, it does not ...