IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA WAYCROSS DIVISION

ORLANDO SMITH,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:23-cv-84

v.

FERNANDO CARVALLO, et al.,

Defendants.

O RDE R Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s October 26, 2023 Order denying his motion to appoint counsel. Doc. 15. A motion for reconsideration, or a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion, is “an extraordinary remedy, to be employed sparingly.” Smith ex rel. Smith v. Augusta-Richmond County, No. CV 110-126,

, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 18, 2012) (internal citation omitted). “A movant must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.”

(internal citation omitted). “The only grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newly[]discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Intern., Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Kellogg,

, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999) (internal punctuation omitted)). “A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument[,] or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Id. (quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington,

(11th Cir. 2005) (alterations omitted)). The Court discerns no reason to grant Plaintiffs Motion and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion. He fails to present any newly discovered evidence in support of his renewed request for appointment of counsel, nor does he allege this Court’s previously entered Order represents a manifest error of law or fact. The Court’s October 26, 2023 Order remains the Order of the Court. SO ORDERED, this 17th day of January, 2024.

BO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA