RUSSONIELLO

v.

INGRAM

This cause is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Joseph P. Russoniello's (“Plaintiff”) Objection to Order Granting Defendant's Final Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint With Prejudice, which the Court construes as a Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 49 (the “Motion”)). Upon consideration, the Motion is due to be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on December 7, 2023. (Doc. 1). Ultimately, Defendants Kelly McCormack Ingram, Russell E. Klemm, and Alan Schwartzseid (collectively, "Defendants”) filed their respective motions to dismiss. (Docs. 20, 22, 38). On June 13, 2024, Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick issued a report recommending that the Court grant Defendants' motions to dismiss. (Doc. 42 (the “Report and Recommendation”)). Further, the Report and Recommendation

notified the parties that they had fourteen days “to file written objections to this report's proposed findings and recommendations or to seek an extension of the fourteen-day deadline to file written objections.” (Id. at p. 9 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C))). Twenty-seven days later, on July 10, 2024, “[a]fter an independent de novo review of the record in this matter, and noting that no objections were timely filed," the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 45 (the “Order”)). Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order. II. LEGAL STANDARD

A court's reconsideration of a prior order is an “extraordinary remedy" that should be used “sparingly." Taylor Woodrow Constr. Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee Airport Auth., 814 F. Supp. 1072, 1072–73 (M.D. Fla. 1993); accord Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F. 2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984). Such a motion may arise under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). See FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e), 60(b).

Under either Rule, a motion to reconsider cannot be used to “relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised [earlier]." Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, 408 F. 3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005); accord Imperato v. Hartford Ins. Co., 803 F. App'x 229, 231 (11th Cir. 2020) (per curiam).¹ It is wholly inappropriate in a motion for reconsideration to "vent dissatisfaction with the Court's reasoning.” Madura v. BAC Home Loans Servicing

L.P., No. 8:11-cv-2511, 2013 WL 4055851, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2013) (citation omitted). Instead, the moving party must set forth “strongly convincing” reasons for the Court to change its prior decision. Id. at *1. Thus, to prevail on a motion to reconsider, the movant must identify “manifest errors of law or fact" or extraordinary circumstances. Arthur v. King, 500 F. 3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted).²

III. DISCUSSION

Simply put, Plaintiff's Motion does not satisfy the rigorous standard for reconsideration of a Court's Order.³ (See Doc. 49). Specifically, Plaintiff fails to identify any "manifest errors of law or fact." (See id.). At most, Plaintiff asserts that the Order was “influenced by unreasonableness/[b]ias.” (Id.). However, Plaintiff does not further explain this conclusory assertion, nor does he provide any facts or legal authority in support. (See id.). Ultimately, the Court will not reconsider its prior decision without adequate reason.

IV. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 49) is

DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on September 19, 2024.

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

PR

PAUL G. BYRON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4