United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DANNY C. REEVES, District Judge.
This matter is currently pending for consideration of Petitioner Reginald Boone's motion to alter or amend this Court's judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). [Record No. 9] Boone has not shown that he is entitled to the relief sought. As a result, his motion will be denied.
The purpose of a Rule 59(e) motion is to allow the district court to make its own corrections, thus sparing the parties and appellate court the burden of unnecessary appellate proceedings. Howard v. United States, 533 F.3d 472, 475 (6th Cir. 2008). However, while Rule 59 allows for reconsideration of a court's judgment, it does not permit parties to effectively "reargue a case." Howard, 533 F.3d at 475 (citing Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998)). Motions to reconsider are not "designed to give an unhappy litigant an opportunity to relitigate matters already decided." Davidson v. Roadway Express, Inc., 562 F.Supp.2d 971, 985 (N.D. Ohio 2008). Rather, the moving party "must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence." Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publ'g, LLC, 477 F.3d 383, 395 (6th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).
Boone's primary argument in motion to alter or amend is that the Court erroneously applied the Supreme Court's holding in Watson v. United States, 552 U.S. 74 (2007), in concluding that he is not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. However, as explained at pages 5 through 6 of the Court's earlier Memorandum Opinion and Order, Watson does not entitle Boone to the relief sought. [Record No. 5] The Court finds no error in its earlier discussion or application of the holding in Watson ...