United States District Court, D. Maryland
JILLYN K. SCHULZE, Magistrate Judge.
Presently pending is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Order of May 7, 2015. ECF No. 49. The motion has been fully briefed and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion will be denied.
The court's May 7 Order granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's racial discrimination claim (Count I) and dismissed Plaintiff's retaliation claims (Counts II and III), fraud claim (Count IV), and breach of contract claim (Count V). ECF No. 48. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of that Order only with respect to her retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count II).
A motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) is granted only in limited circumstances. Microbix Biosystems, Inc. v. BioWhittaker, Inc., 184 F.Supp.2d 434, 436 (D. Md. 2000). Such a motion is appropriate in one of three scenarios:
(1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not previously available; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.
Medlock v. Rumsfeld, 336 F.Supp.2d 452, 467-68 (D. Md. 2002). "[A] motion to reconsider is not a license to reargue the merits or present new evidence." Royal Insurance Co. of America v. Miles & Stockbridge, P.C., 142 F.Supp.2d 676, 677 n.1 (D. Md. 2001) (citing RGI, Inc. v. Unified Indus., Inc., 963 F.2d 658 (4th Cir. 1992). In addition, Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) provides that a court may relieve a party from a final judgment for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment on which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or
(6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
"Rule 60(b) is reserved for special limited circumstances where equity requires reconsideration, " Medlock, 336 F.Supp.2d at 467, and "[t]he moving party faces a substantial burden in connection with a motion for reconsideration of an Order of this Court." F.D.I.C. v. Heidrick, 812 F.Supp. 586, 588 (D. Md. 1991).
To maintain an action for retaliation, a plaintiff must show "(1) that [she] engaged in a protected activity; (2) that the employer took adverse employment action; and (3) that a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the adverse action." Middleton v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 68 F.Supp.2d 665, 671-72 (D. Md. 1999). A plaintiff must also show that the ...