Case Activity (208)

1. Misc | Filed: September 17, 2026 | Entered: September 17, 2026 Bruce v. REV FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ("REVFCU") et al

   Consumer Credit | South Carolina

   Document Mailed

   ***DOCUMENT MAILED 260 Order on Motion to Alter Judgment, Order on Motion for Reconsideration placed in U.S. Mail from Charleston Clerks Office to Nelson L. Bruce P.O. Box 3345 Summerville, SC 29484 (rhei, )

2. Order | Filed: September 17, 2026 | Entered: September 17, 2026 Bruce v. REV FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ("REVFCU") et al

   Consumer Credit | South Carolina

   Order on Motion to Alter Judgment Order on Motion for Reconsideration

   TEXT ORDER denying 257 motion to alter judgment; denying 257 motion for reconsideration, filed by Nelson L. Bruce pursuant to Rules 59(e) and/or 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. *** A motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is "an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly." Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998). Such a motion should be granted for only three reasons: (1) to follow an intervening change in controlling law; (2) on account of new evidence; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Id. at 403. By contrast, Rule 60(b) provides that a court may relieve a party from an adverse judgment under six specific circumstances. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)(6). *** In his motion, Bruce asserts that reconsideration is warranted to "correct clear error of law, to account for evidence and claims overlooked in the Order, and to prevent manifest injustice." (ECF No. 257 at 1.) *** After review, however, the Court finds that Bruce'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 Bruce'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, Bruce is not entitled to relief pursuant to Rule 59(e). Likewise, the Court finds no basis to grant relief under Rule 60(b). *** Accordingly, Bruce's motion is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. *** Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 09/17/2026. (nsw)

3. 206 additional result(s)