[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 20

- 11686 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:19

- cv - 01439

- LMM

CHRISTOPHER LENARD PUGH, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ ( December 17, 2020 ) Before MARTIN , BRANCH, and ED CARNES , Circu it Judges.
PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 20-11686 Date Filed: 12/17/2020 Page: 1 of 32 Christopher Pugh, a Georgia state prisoner act ing pro se , believes that his May 2015 arrest by United States Marshals was unlawful. In 2017 he filed a complaint against , among others, the United States , alleging that the 2015 arrest was unlawful and raising claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346

. That complaint was dismissed. Pugh filed another complaint in 2019, also against the United States , also under the Federal Tort Claims Ac t, and also based on the arrest. A magistrate judge issued a report that recommended the 2019 complaint be dismissed b ecause it was barred by res judicata. Pugh objected to the report, contending that res judicata did not bar his new case. H e argued that his new c ase was not the same cause of action as the old one because it was based on a different theory of recovery and relied on different evidence. The district court rejected Pugh’s argument and a dopted the magistrate judge’s report . It ruled that Pugh’s new case and his old one were both based on the 2015 arrest, so they were the same cause of action

. Pugh filed a motion for reconsideration. H is motion raised a new argument that res judicata did not apply because his previous complaint had been dismissed without prejudice. The court denied the motion . I n doing so , i t not ed that the motion for reconsideration was the first time Pugh had raised that argument and

USCA11 Case: 20-11686 Date Filed: 12/17/2020 Page: 2 of 33 that, in any event, th e claims in his previous complaint had actually been dismissed with prejudice. Pugh appeals the denial of his motion for reconsideration , which we review only for an abuse of discretion

. Lockard v. Equifax, Inc. , 163 F.3d 1259, 1267 (11th Cir. 1998). A party cannot use a motion for reconsideration “to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc. , 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted)

. That “includes new arguments that were previously available, but not pressed.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). And “w e

can affirm on any ground that finds support in the record. ” Big Top Koolers, Inc. v. Circus

- Man Snacks, Inc

. , 528 F.3d 839, 844 (11th Cir. 2008). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pugh’s motion for
reconsideration , which was based solely on this argument that his previous case was dismissed without prejudice

. But h e did not make that argument when he objected to the magistrate judge’s report, or at any other time before the court entered judgment, even though the argument was available to him and he could have done so

. “ [I] t was well within the district court’s sound discretion to deny the motion for reconsideration.” Wilchombe , 555 F.3d at 95 7

. AFFIRMED. USCA11 Case: 20-11686 Date Filed: 12/17/2020 Page: 3 of 3