STAN HUNT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) Plaintiff, ) ) 

### v. Civil Action No. 11-1210 (RJL) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS, ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant.

# ~ MEMORANDUM OPINION February

# J.!1, 2013 [## 37-1, 38] Pending before the Court is plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Rule 59 Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. # 38] and his Rule 59 Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. # 37- 1], which defendant has opposed [Dkt. # 41]. Plaintiffseeks reconsideration ofthe final order entered onAugust 31, 2012 [Dkt. 

### # 34]. Since the motion to reconsider was timely filed on September 13, 2012, the Court DENIES AS MOOTplaintiffs Motion for Leave to File the Rule 59 Motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (requiring a motionto alter or amend ajudgmentto be filed no laterthan 28 days afterthe entry ofthejudgment). In addition, for the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PARTplaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration. Motions for reconsideration offinal orders are committed to the sound discretion ofthe trial court to grant or deny. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996). A motion for reconsideration "neednot be granted unless the district court finds thatthere is an intervening change ofcontrolling law, the availability ofnew
1evidence or the need to correct a clear error orprevent manifest injustice." 

### !d. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "ARule 59(e) motion to reconsider is not simply

an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled,"New York v. UnitedStates, 880 F. Supp. 37, 38 (D.D.C. 1995), nor is it a means to raise new issues or to present new theories or arguments that could have been advanced during the

course oflitigation, Patton Boggs LLPv. Chevron Corp., 683 F.3d 397,403 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (citing Fox v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291, 1296 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). Plaintiffmakes two independent assertions in his motion for reconsideration. First, he asserts that the Court's denial ofhis motion for summaryjudgment on the Privacy Act claim "is contrary to the facts and applicable law." Pl.'s Mot. for Reconsideration**~** 5. This assertion reiterates previously-considered arguments, thereby providing no basis for reconsideration ofthe denial ofplaintiffs summaryjudgment motion. Forthis reason, this element ofplaintiffs motion for reconsideration must be denied.Second, plaintiffasserts that thejudgment in defendant's favor on the Privacy Act claim constituted "an error oflaw" since defendant failed to respond to that claim in its summaryjudgment motion and "did not seek reliefwith regard" to that claim. Id.**~** 3. As to this assertion, the Court finds that plaintiffhas reasonably questioned the awarding of judgmentto defendant on the Privacy Act claim, since defendant did not seek summaryjudgment on this claim or oppose plaintiffs motion for summaryjudgment. In granting this element ofplaintiffs motion, the Court will amend the final order to make clearthatjudgment is awarded to defendant only on the Freedom ofInformation Act 2claim and that the Privacy Act claim is dismissed under the screening provisions of28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim upon which reliefcan be granted. See Mem. Op. [Dkt. # 33] at 7-10. Accordingly, plaintiffs Rule 59 Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and his Motion for Leave to File the Rule 59 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED AS MOOT. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

United States

3