Case Activity (123)

1. Order | Filed: April 23, 2026 | Entered: April 23, 2026 Nelson-Rivers v. Berkeley Electric Cooperative Board et al

   Civil Rights: Jobs | South Carolina

   Order on Motion for Reconsideration

   TEXT ORDER denying 16 Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss, filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. *** Reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly. See Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir.1998). Ordinarily, a court may grant a motion to alter or amend under Rule 59(e) for only three reasons: (1) to comply with an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available previously; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Id. at 403. *** Here, Plaintiff asserts that reconsideration is warranted to correct clear errors of law and to prevent manifest injustice. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the Court erred in dismissing Plaintiff's claims for race discrimination, breach of contract, breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act, and civil conspiracy at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, and Plaintiff urges the Court to allow her claims to proceed to discovery. *** After review, however, the Court finds that Plaintiff's motion merely rehashes arguments that the Court has already considered and rejected. Notably, a Rule 59(e) motion "is not a vehicle to re-argue issues previously presented or to express mere disagreement with the Court in a pitch to change its mind." Hencely v. Fluor Corp., No. 6:19-cv-489-BHH, 2020 WL 5269795, *1 (D.S.C. Sept. 4, 2020) (citing Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008), and Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1993)). Indeed, the Court finds that Plaintiff's motion does not identify any clear errors of law or manifest injustice warranting reconsideration. See Dockins v. Benchmark Commc'ns, 180 F.R.D. 294, 295 (D.S.C. 1998), aff'd, 176 F.3d 745 (4th Cir. 1999) ("[A] motion to reconsider cannot appropriately be granted where the moving party simply seeks to have the Court rethink what the Court has already thought throughrightly or wrongly.") (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. *** Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 04/23/20216.

2. Response | Filed: April 06, 2026 | Entered: April 06, 2026 Nelson-Rivers v. Berkeley Electric Cooperative Board et al

   Civil Rights: Jobs | South Carolina

   Reply to Response to Motion

   REPLY to Response to Motion re 16 MOTION for Reconsideration Response filed by Trena Nelson-Rivers. (Gist, Donald)

3. 121 additional result(s)