Opinion ID: 2982007
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of the post-judgment motion

Text: Finally, we turn to the question of whether the district court properly denied Chambers’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. The circumstances under which a district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion are limited. “A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion . . . only if there is: (1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.” Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol. Schs., 469 F.3d 479, 496 (6th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Chambers has not established any of the four alternative showings. First, he did not identify any clear error of law made by the district court in his motion to alter or amend judgment, nor does he argue one now. Second, his two late-filed affidavits do not contain any newly discovered evidence -15- No. 07-5280 Chambers v. Saturn Corp. because, “[t]o constitute ‘newly discovered evidence,’ the evidence must have been previously unavailable.” Gencorp, Inc. v. Am. Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999). “[A] district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a Rule 59 motion when it is premised on evidence that the party had in his control prior to the original entry of judgment.” Emmons v. Mclaughlin, 874 F.2d 351, 358 (6th Cir. 1989). Chambers’s late-filed affidavits do not constitute “newly discovered evidence” because he had personal knowledge about his own activities that he could have submitted to the district court prior to the entry of summary judgment. Third, Chambers has not argued any intervening change in the controlling law. Finally, we do not find any manifest injustice in the district court’s entry of summary judgment for Saturn. Chambers had an opportunity to file a timely response to Saturn’s summary judgment motion but failed to do so. Both his January 19 filings and his January 30 Motion were adequately considered by the district court before they were denied. Because Chambers made none of the showings required for the grant of a Rule 59(e) motion, the district court did not err in denying the same.