PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
SONJA OREM,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
No. 07-1696
MATT REPHANN, Individually and in
his Official Capacity,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg.
Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge.
(3:05-cv-00098)
Argued: March 20, 2008
Decided: April 28, 2008
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and
William L. OSTEEN, Jr., United States District Judge
for the Middle District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Gregory wrote the majority
opinion, in which Judge Osteen joined. Judge Shedd wrote a separate
concurring opinion.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Bridget M. Cohee, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Martins-
burg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Gregory A. Bailey, ARNOLD,
CESARE & BAILEY, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, for Appellee.
2 OREM v. REPHANN
ON BRIEF: Lucien G. Lewin, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Martins-
burg, West Virginia, for Appellant.
OPINION
GREGORY, Circuit Judge:
On March 26, 2005, Sonja Orem ("Orem") was arrested for dis-
rupting and assaulting an officer after being served with a Family Pro-
tective Order ("FPO"). During her transport to a West Virginia
regional jail, Deputy Matt Rephann ("Deputy Rephann") twice tased
Orem. Because Deputy Rephann’s use of the taser constituted exces-
sive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, we affirm the
district court’s denial of summary judgment.
I.
The day Orem was served with a FPO, she had ransacked her hus-
band’s offices.1 She destroyed phones, a computer keyboard and
kicked a hole in the wall. She also had assaulted her husband and
thrown his clothing and belongings into their front yard.
Once served with the FPO, she initially left the residence. Under
the influence of prescription drugs, marijuana, and alcohol, Orem
quickly became enraged and, in her words, started "flipping out"
when she discovered that she would not be allowed to see her son for
six months. She drove back to the house, at a high-rate of speed, skid-
ded into a ditch, left her car and charged at a police officer. Three
officers restrained Orem, placed her in handcuffs, a foot restraint
device ("hobbling device"), and put her in a police car. The foot hob-
bling device was fastened around her ankles and secured by extending
its strap out the front and back passengers’ doors of the police vehi-
cle.
While being transported to the Eastern Regional Jail ("ERJ"), Orem
1
Orem’s husband, John Orem, is a former deputy of the sheriff’s
department.
OREM v. REPHANN 3
yelled, cursed and banged her head against the police car window
three or four times. Her jumping and banging around in the back seat
was so intense that the vehicle rocked, loosening the hobbling device
and requiring Deputy T.E. Boyles, the transporting officer, to pull the
vehicle over. Deputy Rephann was voluntarily following Deputy
Boyles to ERJ; Deputy Boyles had not requested assistance. Deputy
Rephann knew that Deputy Boyles was transporting a prisoner who
was charged with battery and obstruction of a police officer, and who
reportedly was "unruly or combative." When Deputy Boyles pulled to
the side of the road, Deputy Rephann, along with a third deputy,
pulled in behind Deputy Boyles’s vehicle.2
Deputy Rephann exited his vehicle and approached Deputy Boyles’
car with his taser gun drawn. Deputy Boyles got out of his car,
opened the front passenger door of the car, unlocked the rear door and
attempted to tighten the hobbling device. Deputy Rephann opened the
rear door and the following exchange occurred between him and
Orem:
Deputy Rephann: Unlock your door. She’s got a hobble on
her. You need to calm down, Nikki.3
Orem: No, they’re taking my son. John beat the
fuck out of me! And this is what I - -
fucking me. John hit me! Look at my
back. Look at (inaudible) —
Deputy Rephann: Well, calm down, and take care of it
somewhere else.
Orem: I can’t. I’m going to jail. They took my
son.
2
This incident was recorded by Deputy Rephann’s dashboard camera.
Both the district court and this Court reviewed the videotape retrieved
from the camera.
3
Deputy Rephann refers to Sonja Orem informally as "Nikki" because
ostensibly he knew her and her husband, John Orem.
4 OREM v. REPHANN
Deputy Rephann: Stop it.
Orem: Fuck you!
Deputy Rephann: I’m telling you, you’d better stop it.
[taser gun clicking]
Orem: (Scream.) Don’t hit me.
Deputy Rephann: Calm down now.
Orem: I’m suing everybody, you mother
fucker.
Deputy Rephann: You need to respect us. Right now
you’re not.
Orem: (Cries.)
(J.A. 590.) During this exchange, Deputy Rephann shocked Orem
twice with a taser gun — underneath her left breast and on her left
inner thigh. Orem then became compliant and was transported to the
ERJ without further incident. However, a permanent sunburn-like scar
was left where the taser had been applied to her thigh. At the time of
this incident, Orem was 27 years old and weighed 100 pounds. Dep-
uty Rephann, on the other hand, weighed 280 pounds.
Orem sued Deputy Rephann, in his official capacity as an officer
of the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Department and his personal capac-
ity, alleging that he had used excessive force while she was being
transported in the police vehicle. The district court denied Deputy
Rephann’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that Deputy
Rephann’s use of force was unreasonable and in violation of Orem’s
Fourth Amendment rights. Deputy Rephann filed this interlocutory
appeal challenging the district court’s denial of summary judgment
and his Rule 52 Motion to amend the court’s findings.
II.
We review de novo a district court’s denial of summary judgment
and qualified immunity, construing all facts in the light most favor-
OREM v. REPHANN 5
able to the nonmovant. American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland,
Inc. v. Wicomico County, Md., 999 F.2d 780, 784 (4th Cir. 1993).
Notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment, we have jurisdiction
to review "a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity"
because "to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, [it] is an appeal-
able ‘final decision’ within the meaning of . . . [28 U.S.C. § 1291]
. . . ." Henry v. Purnell, 501 F.3d 374, 376 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985)).
III.
"Government officials performing discretionary functions generally
are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct
does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights
of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzger-
ald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). In deciding whether Deputy Rephann
is entitled to qualified immunity, we examine: (1) whether the facts
demonstrate that Deputy Rephann violated Orem’s constitutional
right to be free from excessive force; and, (2) if so, whether Deputy
Rephann’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the then
clearly-established constitutional right. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194,
200 (2001). With these principles in mind, we first consider whether
the facts, when viewed in Orem’s favor, demonstrate that Deputy
Rephann used excessive force.
A.
Our analysis of an excessive force claim brought under § 1983
begins with "identifying the specific constitutional right allegedly
infringed by the challenged application of force." Graham v. Connor,
490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989). Here, the district court analyzed Orem’s
claim that Deputy Rephann used excessive force under the Fourth
Amendment’s "objective reasonableness standard." However, we
have made clear that Fourth Amendment protections do not extend to
arrestees or pretrial detainees. Riley v. Dorton, 115 F.3d 1159 (4th
Cir. 1997) (en banc). Indeed, in Riley, we held that "[t]he Fourth
Amendment [only] governs claims of excessive force during the
course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other ‘seizure’ of a person."
Id. at 1161. Whereas, "excessive force claims of a pretrial detainee [or
arrestee] are governed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
6 OREM v. REPHANN
Amendment." Young v. Prince George’s County, Maryland, 355 F.3d
751, 758 (4th Cir. 2004) (quoting Taylor v. McDuffie, 155 F.3d 479,
483 (4th Cir. 1998)).
The point at which Fourth Amendment protections end and Four-
teenth Amendment protections begin is often murky. But here,
Orem’s excessive force claim arises during her transport to EJR, after
she was arrested. While she had not been formally charged, her status
as an arrestee requires application of the Fourteenth Amendment to
her claim. The district court erred in applying the Fourth Amendment.4
We, nevertheless, affirm its denial of summary judgment on alterna-
tive grounds. See United States v. Smith, 395 F.3d 516, 518-19 (4th
Cir. 2005) ("We are not limited to evaluation of the grounds offered
by the district court to support its decision, but may affirm on any
grounds apparent from the record.").
B.
Deputy Rephann argues that the district court erred in denying
summary judgment. He contends that his use of the taser gun was not
excessive because Orem was unruly and uncooperative. To the con-
trary, Orem maintains that the Deputy Rephann’s use of the taser was
unnecessary and excessive given that she was handcuffed and in foot
restraints. We agree and, therefore, cannot conclude, as a matter of
law, that the force used by Deputy Rephann was constitutionally per-
missible.
To succeed on an excessive force claim under the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Orem must show that Deputy
Rephann "inflicted unnecessary and wanton pain and suffering." Tay-
lor v. McDuffie, 155 F.3d 479, 483 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing Whitley,
475 U.S. at 320). "In determining whether [this] constitutional line
has been crossed, a court must look to such factors as the need for the
application of force, the relationship between the need and the amount
of force used, the extent of the injury inflicted, and whether the force
4
The district court, however, did state in a footnote that the case could
have been framed as a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation for
pretrial detainment treatment. The district court limited its analysis to the
Fourth Amendment based on the parties’ pleadings.
OREM v. REPHANN 7
was applied in a good faith effort to maintain and restore discipline
or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm."
Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir. 1973).
From the facts as we must view them, a reasonable jury could infer
Deputy Rephann’s actions were not a "good faith effort to restore
order" but, rather, wanton and unnecessary. When Deputy Boyles
pulled his vehicle over and exited, it was clear that some action was
necessary to calm Orem and safely transport her to EJR. Deputy
Boyle immediately began to re-secure the hobbling device. Deputy
Rephann, on the other hand, began talking with Orem, whom he knew
because her husband was a former sheriff deputy. Deputy Rephann
did not attempt to assist Deputy Boyles in tightening the hobbling
device. Instead, he began telling Orem she needed to calm down and
refrain from moving in the vehicle. While Deputy Rephann makes
much of his verbal attempts to secure order, they do not lessen the
unreasonableness of his subsequent actions.
When it appeared to Orem that Deputy Rephann was not concerned
with her husband’s alleged abuse or the loss of her son, Orem force-
fully stated "fuck you" to Deputy Rephann. To which he responded,
"stop it" and tased her. Although Deputy Rephann testified that "stop
it" referred to Orem moving her feet around, it is not clear that him
stating "stop it" and subsequently tasering Orem was not in fact a
response to her stating "fuck you," considering that after shocking
Orem, Deputy Rephann commanded that she respect the officers.
Moreover, Deputy Rephann acknowledges that he did not follow
the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Department’s Taser policy, which
requires use of open hand measures before application of the taser.
Yet, he maintains that he used the taser to ensure that Orem would
not endanger herself. But given that Orem was handcuffed, weighed
about 100 pounds, had her ankles loosened in the hobbling device
which Deputy Boyles was tightening, and was locked in the back seat
cage of Deputy Boyles’s car until Deputy Rephann opened the door,
we find this explanation tenuous at best.
Deputy Rephann placed the taser under Orem’s left breast and
inner thigh. Considering his reach was closer to her right side and
other parts of her body, a reasonable juror could also infer that Dep-
8 OREM v. REPHANN
uty Rephann’s application of force in these areas was done for the
very purpose of harming and embarrassing Orem — motives that are
relevant factors, despite Deputy Rephann’s contentions, to determin-
ing whether the use of force was excessive under the Fourteenth
Amendment. See Williams v. Landen, 902 F.2d 927 (4th Cir. 1990)
(unpublished) (noting that there was an unresolved issue of fact
regarding a prison guards motives for spraying two cans of mace on
an inmate who had retreated as far as he could in his cell); see also
Roska ex rel. Roska v. Peterson, 328 F.3d 1230, 1243 (10th Cir. 2003)
(noting that the motives of the state actor are relevant and stating that
"[f]orce inspired by malice or by ‘unwise, excessive zeal amounting
to an abuse of official power that shocks the conscience . . . maybe
redressed under [the Fourteenth Amendment].’"
While we recognize that "not every push or shove, even if it may
later seem unnecessary" is serious enough to entail a deprivation of
a constitutional right, Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1985),
the facts, here, when viewed in a light most favorable to Orem, evi-
dence that Deputy Rephann’s use of the taser gun was wanton, sadis-
tic, and not a good faith effort to restore discipline. Orem’s behavior
without question was reprehensible, but Deputy Rephann’s use of the
taser was an "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Whitely v.
Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320 (1991).
C.
Nevertheless, Deputy Rephann argues that summary judgment is
proper because Orem only suffered de minimus injury. Although de
minimus injury can foreclose a Fourteenth Amendment claim, the dis-
trict court properly recognized that Orem’s injury consisted of far
more than the resulting sunburn-like scar. Riley, 115 F.3d at 1167-68.
It is well settled that a pretrial detainee with only de minimus injury
may only recover if the challenged conduct resulted "in an impermis-
sible infliction of pain" or was otherwise "of a sort repugnant to the
conscience of mankind." Norman v. Taylor, 25 F.3d 1259, n.4 (4th
Cir. 1994) (en banc); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 10 (1992)
(quoting Whitely, 475 U.S. at 327). While Deputy Rephann makes
much of the fact that the taser was only applied for 1.5 seconds, Orem
did experience electric shock, pain, and developed a scar. As the
Eighth Circuit poignantly explained:
OREM v. REPHANN 9
[A] stun gun inflicts a painful and frightening blow, which
temporarily paralyzes the large muscles of the body, render-
ing the victim helpless. This is exactly the sort of torment
without marks . . . which, if inflicted without legitimate rea-
son, supports the Eighth Amendment’s objective compo-
nent.
Hickey v. Reeder, 12 F.3d 754, 757 (8th Cir. 1993) (noting that "tor-
ment without marks" was the sort of excessive force the Supreme
Court was concerned with in deciding prisoner excessive force claims
under the Eighth Amendment). The district court, thus, properly
rejected Deputy Repahnn’s claim that Orem’s injuries were de mini-
mus simply because the taser was only applied for a few seconds.
Because the facts, taken in a light most favorable to Orem, show
that Deputy Rephann inflicted unnecessary and wanton pain and suf-
fering, Orem has alleged a violation of her Fourteenth Amendment
right to be free from excessive force.
IV.
Having found that Deputy Rephann’s conduct violated Orem’s
constitutional right, we turn to whether that constitutional right was
"clearly established" at the time of the violation. In 2005, it was
clearly established that an arrestee or pretrial detainee is protected
from the use of excessive force. See, e.g., Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S.
520 (1979). Deputy Rephann properly concedes this point and, there-
fore, no further discussion is necessary on this matter. Deputy
Rephann, however, asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity
because his conduct was objectively reasonable.
"Because ‘police officers are often forced to make split-second
judgments — in circumstance that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly
evolving,’ the facts must be evaluated from the perspective of a rea-
sonable officer at the scene, and the use of hindsight must be
avoided." Waterman v. Batton, 393 F.3d 471, 476-77 (4th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989) (internal cita-
tions omitted). Hence, qualified immunity will shield Deputy
Rephann from suit if "a reasonable officer" could have believed taser-
ing Orem was lawful, in light of the clearly established law and the
10 OREM v. REPHANN
information Deputy Rephann possessed at the time. Hunter v. Bryant,
502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991). In this case, we need not use hindsight or
conjure up a pseudo-"reasonable officer" because, two other presum-
ably "reasonable officers" were at the scene.
And, indeed, Deputy Boyles, who was transporting Orem and bear-
ing the brunt of her rage, did not request assistance and saw fit to first
try to secure her hobble restraints — not use electric shock to restore
order. The other officer, who stood directly behind Deputy Rephann,
did not attempt to restrain Orem or assist Deputy Boyles in tightening
the hobbling device — let alone use a taser gun. Notwithstanding the
qualified immunity standard’s ample room for mistaken judgments,
there is evidence bearing heavily against Deputy Rephann that, in
these circumstances, the taser gun was not used for a legitimate pur-
pose; such as protecting the officers, protecting Orem, or preventing
Orem’s escape. Id. at 229 ("The qualified immunity standard ‘gives
ample room for mistaken judgments’ by protecting ‘all but the plainly
incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’" (quoting Mal-
ley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). Rather, Deputy Rephann
used the taser to punish or intimidate Orem — a use that is not objec-
tively reasonable, is contrary to clearly established law, and not pro-
tected by qualified immunity.
V.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
affirmed.5
AFFIRMED
SHEDD, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I concur in the majority’s decision to affirm the denial of Deputy
Rephann’s summary judgment motion and his subsequent "Rule
52(b)" motion. I write separately to explain my rationale.
5
The district court’s denial of Deputy Rephann’s Motion pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b) requesting additional findings of fact and asking the
district court to amend or correct its summary judgment ruling is also
affirmed.
OREM v. REPHANN 11
Throughout this litigation, the parties have pled and argued this
case as one involving a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim.
Even after the district court noted the potential applicability of the
Fourteenth Amendment in its summary judgment order, and after we
requested supplemental briefing and specifically cited circuit prece-
dent that indicates the applicability of the Fourteenth Amendment, see
Riley v. Dorton, 115 F.3d 1159, 1164 (4th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (hold-
ing that "the Fourth Amendment does not embrace a theory of ‘con-
tinuing seizure’ and does not extend to the alleged mistreatment of
arrestees or pretrial detainees in custody"), the parties continued to
maintain that the Fourth Amendment applies. However, as the major-
ity correctly holds, this is unquestionably a Fourteenth Amendment
case because at the time Deputy Rephann used his taser on Ms. Orem,
she had been placed under arrest; consequently, the act of seizing her
was complete, see Scott v. Harris, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 1776 (2007) (a
"‘Fourth Amendment seizure [occurs] . . . when there is a governmen-
tal termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally
applied’" (quoting Brower v. Cty. of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 596-97
(1989)), and the Fourth Amendment was no longer applicable, see
Robles v. Prince George’s Cty., Md., 302 F.3d 262, 268 (4th Cir.
2002) ("Once the single act of detaining an individual has been
accomplished, the [Fourth] Amendment ceases to apply."). Despite
the parties’ refusal to recognize this rather obvious conclusion, we are
not bound by their erroneous characterization of the law, see Kamen
v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90, 99 (1991) ("When an issue
or claim is properly before the court, the court is not limited to the
particular legal theories advanced by the parties, but rather retains the
independent power to identify and apply the proper construction of
governing law."), and we may affirm on any ground appearing in the
record, including theories not relied upon by the district court, Scott
v. United States, 328 F.3d 132, 137 (4th Cir. 2003).
Therefore, proceeding to review the district court’s order denying
Deputy Rephann’s summary judgment motion under the Fourteenth
Amendment, we must first consider whether Ms. Orem has met her
burden of presenting sufficient evidence in the record to establish a
Fourteenth Amendment violation. See Henry v. Purnell, 501 F.3d
374, 377-78 (4th Cir. 2007) (explaining the parties’ respective bur-
dens in a qualified immunity analysis). In order to succeed on a Four-
teenth Amendment excessive force claim, Ms. Orem must show that
12 OREM v. REPHANN
Deputy Rephann "‘inflicted unnecessary and wanton pain and suffer-
ing.’ The proper inquiry is whether the force applied was ‘in a good
faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadisti-
cally for the very purpose of causing harm.’" Taylor v. McDuffie, 155
F.3d 479, 483 (4th Cir. 1998) (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S.
312, 320-21 (1986)).
As the majority explains, the record establishes that Ms. Orem’s
reprehensible conduct while riding in Deputy Boyles’ patrol car war-
ranted some use of force to restrain her. Ms. Orem does not contest
this fact and, in light of the videotape of this incident, we would not
be required to accept her version even if she did so. See Harris, 127
S. Ct. at 1776 (holding on summary judgment that when the non-
moving party’s version of events is "so utterly discredited by [a
videotape] that no reasonable jury could have believed him," then the
court should not rely on "such visible fiction" but instead should view
the facts "in the light depicted by the videotape"). Generally, we have
recognized in the Fourteenth Amendment context that law enforce-
ment officers must be accorded "due deference" when it comes to
their attempts to restrain disorderly detainees by force. See, e.g.,
Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 696-97 (4th Cir. 1999). Notwith-
standing this general principle, I believe that a sufficient jury question
exists in this record and based on the arguments presented concerning
whether Deputy Rephann used his taser in a good-faith effort to main-
tain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically for the very
purpose of causing harm. I base my conclusion on the following facts:
(1) Ms. Orem, while unruly, was mostly restrained in the back of the
patrol car; (2) Deputy Rephann used the taser immediately in
response to Ms. Orem’s use of profanity toward him; (3) Deputy
Rephann’s taser twice made contact with Ms. Orem, and both times
the contact was in a sensitive body area (i.e., just below her breast and
on her thigh); and (4) Deputy Rephann told Ms. Orem that she needed
to "respect" the officers immediately after he used his taser.
In addition to the foregoing, Ms. Orem must also show that her
injury resulting from Deputy Rephann’s infliction of force is more
than de minimis, or that the force used is "‘of a sort repugnant to the
conscience of mankind . . . or the pain itself [is] such that it can prop-
erly be said to constitute more than de minimis injury.’" Carr v.
Deeds, 453 F.3d 593, 605-06 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Norman v. Tay-
OREM v. REPHANN 13
lor, 25 F.3d 1259, 1263 n.4 (4th Cir. 1994) (en banc)). In my view,
the district court correctly concluded that Ms. Orem met her summary
judgment burden based on this record.1 Specifically, she has testified
that Deputy Rephann’s use of the taser left a scar on her thigh. More-
over, the pain associated with being shocked twice by a taser in sensi-
tive body areas (as she was) seems to me to fall within the level that
we have recognized constitutes more than de minimis injury regard-
less of whether Ms. Orem has any enduring injury.
Because Ms. Orem has presented sufficient evidence to create a
jury question as to whether Deputy Rephann violated her constitu-
tional right, the burden shifts to him to establish his entitlement to
qualified immunity. See Henry, 501 F.3d at 378. In this regard, he
must establish that it would not have been clear to a reasonable officer
that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted. Id. at
377. I agree with the majority that Deputy Rephann has failed to meet
his burden.
In short, for the foregoing reasons, I agree with the majority that
the district court’s order denying Deputy Rephann’s summary judg-
ment motion should be affirmed. Not every use of a taser will give
rise to a constitutional violation, and Deputy Rephann may very well
be able at trial to convince a jury that his conduct in this instance was
lawful, but he is not entitled to summary judgment on this record.2
1
Although the district court analyzed this case under the Fourth
Amendment, it concluded that Ms. Orem’s injuries are more than de
minimis.
2
After the district court orally denied Deputy Rephann’s summary
judgment motion, he unsuccessfully moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b)
for the district court to make additional findings and change its ruling,
and he apparently submitted for the first time several affidavits (includ-
ing his own) with that motion. Rule 52(b) is a trial rule that is not appli-
cable in a summary judgment proceeding; however, a motion
erroneously filed under Rule 52(b) may be treated as a Rule 59(e) motion
to alter or amend. See St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Fair Grounds Corp.,
123 F.3d 336, 339 (5th Cir. 1997). We review for abuse of discretion a
district court’s decision on a Rule 59(e) motion. Pacific Ins. Co. v. Amer-
ican Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 402 (4th Cir. 1998). "Although
Rule 59(e) does not itself provide a standard under which a district court
14 OREM v. REPHANN
may grant a motion to alter or amend a judgment, we have . . . recog-
nized that there are three grounds for amending an earlier judgment: (1)
to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account
for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of
law or prevent manifest injustice." Id. at 403. I find that Deputy Rephann
has failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in
denying this motion.