United States District Court, D. Maryland
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
31, 2019, Plaintiff Michael Osei filed a motion pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 60(a), requesting the court to alter its
Memorandum Opinion issued May 10, 2019. (ECF No.
91).Plaintiff alleges that this court
“recklessly misrepresents Plaintiff's
arguments” and requests that the court “correct
the identified errors.” (ECF No. 91, at 2-3). Attached
to Plaintiff's motion is a copy of the court's
Memorandum Opinion containing handwritten notes that identify
specific areas of dispute. (ECF No. 91-2). Then, on June 10,
2019, Plaintiff also filed a Notice of Appeal of the
court's May 10, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order (ECF
Nos. 89-90) with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit. (ECF No. 92).
filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff's motion on
June 14, 2019, arguing that “the ‘errors'
identified by Plaintiff are not clerical mistakes or
omissions, but instead are challenges to the [c]ourt's
recitation of the procedural history of the case and its
substantive findings.” (ECF No. 94). Plaintiff filed a
reply on July 8, 2019, challenging many of Defendants'
assertions (ECF No. 96, at 3-8) and indicating that, because
the court “failed to correct the identified errors,
Plaintiff will now focus on his Appeal and stand upon the
uncorrected blatant errors in this Court's
opinion[.]” (Id., at 8).
issues are briefed and the court now rules, no hearing being
deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that
follow, Plaintiff's motion will be denied.
R.Civ.P. 60(a) permits relief from a judgment or order to
“correct clerical mistakes; oversights and
omissions.” This rule is “properly utilized to
perform a completely ministerial task (such as making a
judgment more specific in the face of an original omission),
but not to revisit the merits of the question or reconsider
the matter.” Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp. v. F/V
Site Clearance I, 275 F.App'x. 199, 204-05
(4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Kosnoski v.
Howley, 33 F.3d 376, 379 (4th Cir. 1994)
(internal quotation marks omitted)). In other words, “a
motion under Rule 60(a) only can be used to make the judgment
or record speak the truth and cannot be used to make it say
something other than what originally was pronounced.”
11 Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and
Procedure § 2854, at 303 (footnote omitted)..
provides no grounds for relief under Rule 60(a), but rather
notes his disagreement with the court's wording and
conclusion. (See ECF No. 91-1). Mere
disagreement with the law as applied by this court is not a
basis for relief under Rule 60(a), and Plaintiff's motion
will be denied.
motion could be construed as a motion for reconsideration,
governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), because it
was filed within 28 days of the underlying order. See
Sewell v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, No.
16-cv-02457-PX, 2017 WL 6422376, at *1 (D.Md. Sept. 12, 2017)
(“Because [the] motion [for reconsideration] . . . was
filed within 28 days following the entry of the [o]rder at
issue . . . the [c]ourt will construe [the] motion as one
filed under Rule 59(e).”). Courts have recognized three
limited grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration
pursuant to Rule 59(e): (1) to accommodate an intervening
change in controlling law, (2) to account for new evidence
not available at trial, or (3) to correct clear error of law
or prevent manifest injustice. See United States ex rel.
Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d 284,
290 (4thCir. 2002) (citing Pac. Ins. Co. v.
Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403
(4th Cir. 1998)), cert. denied, 538 U.S.
1012 (2003). A Rule 59(e) motion “may not be used to
relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present
evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of
judgment.” Pac. Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at 403
(quoting 11 Charles Wright & Arthur Miller, Federal
Practice & Procedure § 2810.1, at 127-28
(2d ed. 1995)); see also Medlock v.
Rumsfeld, 336 F.Supp.2d 452, 470 (D. Md. 2002)
(“To the extent that Plaintiff is simply trying to
reargue the case, he is not permitted to do so. Where a
motion does not raise new arguments, but merely urges the
court to ‘change its mind,' relief is not
authorized.”), aff'd, 86 F.App'x. 665
(4th Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted).
“In general, ‘reconsideration of a judgment after
its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used
sparingly.'” Pac. Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at
403 (quoting 11 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice &
Procedure § 2810.1, at 124).
has not sufficiently addressed any of the grounds for
reconsideration under Rule 59(e), nor does any appear to be
applicable. The court will not rehash the same arguments
considered and rejected by the court in deciding the prior
motions. See Sanders v. Prince George's Pub. Sch.
Sys., No. RWT 08-cv-501, 2011 WL 4443441, at *1 (D.Md.
Sept. 21, 2011) (“[A] motion for reconsideration
‘is not the proper place to relitigate a case after the
court has ruled against a party,' as ‘mere
disagreement' with a court's rulings will not support
granting such a request.”) (internal citations
the court finds no reason to justify amending its prior
ruling and Plaintiff's motion will be denied.
 A motion filed within 28 days after
the entry of judgment is analyzed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, and
tolls the time for filing an appeal. Fed. R.App.
4(a)(4)(A)(iv); Colter v. Omni Insurance Co., 718
Fed.Appx. 189, 190 (4th Cir. 2018).
 It is unclear from Plaintiff's
assertion that he will “focus on his [a]ppeal and stand
upon the uncorrected blatant errors in this [c]ourt's
opinion” if he seeks to withdraw the pending 60(a)
motion. (ECF No. 96, at 8). Because of this ambiguity, the
court will proceed as though Plaintiff is not withdrawing the
motion. Moreover, the end result - the court making no
changes to the June 6, 2019 Memorandum Opinion (ECF No. 89) -
will remain the same.
 In the Memorandum Opinion filed on May
10, 2019, the court stated: “Instead of filing a
proposed amended complaint or detailing his efforts to retain
an attorney, Plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal (ECF No.
68) and a motion for extension of time to file a proposed
amended complaint and to stay proceedings in this court
pending his appeal (ECF No. 69)[.]” (ECF No. 89).
Plaintiff argues that this statement is
“erroneous” because he included direct statements