Free Order on Motion to Alter Judgment - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cv-02171-EWN-BNB

Document 163

Filed 03/01/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Edward W. Nottingham Civil Action No. 01­ 02171­ cv­ EWN­ BNB

BRIAN B. RAY, Plaintiff, v. GARY WATKINS, CHRISTOPHER PETROZZI, DALE O' CONNOR, MATTHEW A. BARNES, and ANITA BLOOR, Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the " Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, Federal Rule 59(e)"(#161) filed by plaintiff on April 15 2005. The court has reviewed the motion and the response. The court notes that a motion to alter or amend is not a second opportunity for the losing party to make its strongest case, to rehash arguments, or to dress up arguments that previously failed. See Voelkel v. General Motors Corp., 846 F. Supp. 1482, 1483 (D. Kan. 1994), aff' 43 F.3d 1484 (10th Cir. 1994). Most importantly, a motion to alter or amend is not a d, motion " reargue those issues already considered when a party does not like the way the original to motion was resolved." In re Houbigant, Inc., 914 F. Supp. 997, 1001 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). The court is not persuaded by the arguments raised in the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and

Case 1:01-cv-02171-EWN-BNB

Document 163

Filed 03/01/2006

Page 2 of 2

does not believe that the motion casts doubt on the conclusions reached in the original order accepting the magistrate judge' recommendation. Accordingly, it is s ORDERED that the " Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, Federal Rule 59(e)"(#161) be DENIED. DATED this 1st day of March, 2005. BY THE COURT:

s/ Edward W. Nottingham EDWARD W. NOTTINGHAM United States District Judge

-2-