McDonald v. Lavespere ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA RANDY MCDONALD (#452858) CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 18-743-SDD-SDJ DR. RANDY LAVESPERE, ET AL. RULING Before the Court is the plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (R. Doc. 121) wherein the plaintiff moves for the Court to vacate its Ruling (R. Doc. 120) granting the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 110) and dismissing this action with prejudice. When a motion for reconsideration “‘calls into question the correctness’ of the judgment,” the Court considers it under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Allen v. Envirogreen Landscape Prof'ls, Inc., 721 F. App'x 322, 328 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 (5th Cir. 2004)). “Rule 59(e) motions serve ‘the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.’” Id. (quoting Templet, 367 F.3d at 479). “‘Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.’” Id. (quoting Templet, 367 F.3d at 479). “Accordingly, a motion for reconsideration ‘is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.’” Id. (quoting Templet, 367 F.3d at 479). In the instant matter, the plaintiff has not identified a manifest error of law or fact, presented new evidence, or shown an intervening change in controlling law. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider (R. Doc. 121) is DENIED. Baton Rouge, Louisiana the 20 day of January, 2021. hack agit che MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA