UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN DESHAWN D. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 21-CV-176 JOHNNA STANONIK, Defendant. ORDER On February 23, 2023, the court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed this case. (ECF No. 64.) On March 23, 2023, pro se plaintiff DeShawn D. Johnson filed a motion to amend the judgment. (ECF No. 65.) Johnson moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a party to file a motion to alter or amend a judgment within twenty-eight days of the court entering judgment. Johnson’s motion is timely. “Rule 59(e) allows a court to alter or amend a judgment only if the petitioner can demonstrate a manifest error of law or present newly discovered evidence.” Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 494 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Sigsworth v. City of Aurora, 487 F.3d 506, 511-12, (7th Cir. 2007)). Johnson argues that the court made a manifest error of law. A “manifest error of law” “is not demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party. It is the ‘wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.’” Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 244 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Sedrak v. Callahan, 987 F. Supp. 10638, 1069 (N.D. IIL. 1997)). Johnson does not demonstrate that the court made a manifest error of law. He generally takes issue with the way the court evaluated and considered his evidence. That is not a basis for granting his motion. See Oto, 244 F.3d at 606. As such, the court DENIES his motion. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 10th day of May, 2023. BY THE COURT WILLIAM E. DUFFI United States Magistrate Judge