Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-07-1783.
May 27, 2009
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION
On March 20, 2009, the plaintiff, Kathy Matthews, filed a "rejection" of this court's memorandum and order entered on March 10, 2009, adopting the memorandum and recommendation of the magistrate judge entered on February 18, 2009. Matthews moved for a new trial. (Docket Entry No. 57). A motion for new trial filed within ten days after the entry of judgment dismissing a movant's claims is properly considered under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Robin v. United States, 233 Fed. Appx. 350, 352 (5th Cir. 2007). A Rule 59(e) motion "calls into question the correctness of a judgment." In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002). The movant is required to "establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence." Robin, 233 Fed. Appx. at 352. A Rule 59(e) motion should not be used to relitigate prior matters that should have been urged earlier or that simply have been resolved to the movant's dissatisfaction. See Mongrue v. Monsanto Co., 249 F.3d 422, 427-28 (5th Cir. 2001); Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990).
The magistrate judge's memorandum and recommendation analyzed Mathews's claims in detail. Matthews has not identified any basis for the new trial she seeks. The motion for new trial is denied for the reasons set out in the memorandum and recommendation issued by the magistrate judge and the memorandum and order issued by this court.