Opinion ID: 165317
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Plaintiff's Post-Judgment Motion to Alter or Amend

Text: 37 Mr. Lamb also challenges the district court's denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment, arguing that the court erred by holding his negligence claim subsumed by his libel claim, and denying him his right to discovery, Aplt. Br. at 10. Having reviewed the district court's ruling for an abuse of discretion and concluded that the court did not make a clear error of judgment or exceed[] the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances, we leave the district court's ruling undisturbed. Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir.1997). A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment should be granted only to correct manifest errors of law or to present newly discovered evidence. Id. Neither circumstance applies here. 38 The judgment of the district court and its order denying Mr. Lamb's motion to alter or amend are AFFIRMED.