Opinion
Civil Action No: 01-3643 SECTION "R" (5)
October 15, 2002
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is pro-se plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. The Court entered judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint on September 11, 2002. plaintiff filed this motion, which the Court will construe as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59, on September 12, 2002, which is within the ten-day time period allowed by Rule 59.
A district court has considerable discretion to grant or to deny a motion under Rule 59(e). See Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993). Courts in this district hold that a moving party must satisfy at least one of the following criteria to prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion: (1) the motion is necessary to correct a manifest error of fact or law; (2) the movant presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) the motion is necessary in order to prevent manifest injustice; and (4) the motion is justified by an intervening change in the controlling law. See Fidelity Deposit Co. of Md. v. Omni Bank, 1999 WL 970526, *3 (E.D.La. 1999); Jupiter v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 1999 WL 796218, *1 (E.D.La. 1999); Burma Navigation Corp. v. M/V Reliant Seahorse, 1998 WL 781587, *1 (E.D.La. 1998)
Plaintiff, a former employee of the United States Postal Service, alleges that he was removed from his job based on race and physical disability, plaintiff pursued claims before both the EEOC and the Merit Systems Protection Board ("MSPB"). In its Order and Reasons dismissing plaintiff's complaint, the Court noted that his claims before the EEOC concluded on November 27, 2001. plaintiff sought appeal of these claims in this Court on April 9, 2002. Because plaintiff waited more than 90 days, appeal of these claims is untimely under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 (c) (2002). Plaintiff's claims before the MSPB concluded on January 9, 2002. Because plaintiff waited more than 60 days before seeking an appeal of these claims before this Court, plaintiff's appeal is untimely under 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(1) (2002). Plaintiff makes no showing that either the law or the facts upon which this Court relied in dismissing plaintiff's complaint are erroneous.
Accordingly, the Court denies plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment.