IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION MARCO HARRISON PLAINTIFF V. CAUSE NO: 1:24-CV-19-SA-RP THOMAS OWENS and TRUSTMARK NATIONAL BANK DEFENDANTS ORDER On September 5, 2024, the Court entered an Order [18] dismissing Harrison’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Harrison has now filed a Motion for Reconsideration [19], wherein he “asks the Court to reconsider final judgment to allow Plaintiff to resubmit a complaint against Defendant that provides a private right of action.” [19] at p. 1. The Defendants oppose the request. “A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment is an ‘extraordinary remedy’ that serves the ‘narrow purpose’ of ‘allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.’” Wilson v. Mississippi,

, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Nov. 16, 2022) (quoting Templet v. HydroChem, Inc.,

(Sth Cir. 2004)). “Its proper use does not extend to rehash evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been presented before judgment was entered.” /d. (citation omitted). The Court sees no need to reconsider its prior ruling. It is worth noting that after Harrison originally filed his Complaint [1], the Court entered an Order to Show Cause [4] wherein it identified for Harrison certain concerns pertaining to federal question jurisdiction. The Court permitted Harrison to file an Amended Complaint [5]. The Amended Complaint [5] did not identify a basis for federal question jurisdiction and the Court therefore dismissed the case. The Court’s Order [18] clearly articulated the lack of federal question jurisdiction, and nothing in

Harrison’s current filing justifies revisiting that ruling. The extraordinary relief that Harrison now seeks is not warranted. The Motion [19] is DENIED. This CASE remains CLOSED. SO ORDERED this the 31st day of October, 2024. /s/ Sharion Aycock UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE