UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
___________________________
No. 01-60315
Summary Calendar
___________________________
AZZIE HENDERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC; ET AL,
Defendants,
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
___________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
(1:99-CV-497)
___________________________________________________
September 20, 2001
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this appeal, Henderson first contends that the district
court abused its wide discretion by denying her Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e)
motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order granting
UPS’s unopposed motion for summary judgment.1 Henderson argues
*
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
1
Henderson does not appeal the actual grant of summary
judgment in favor of UPS.
1
that the district court ruled on the motion for summary judgment
too quickly because her newly retained counsel told the court he
planned to file an amended complaint. However, Henderson had
already missed the deadline to file an amended complaint by several
months, and her counsel had not actually filed such a complaint.
Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion as a result
of its timing in denying Henderson’s motion for reconsideration of
its grant of summary judgment.
Henderson next argues that the district court’s findings
regarding a potential Title VII claim were manifestly erroneous.
Presumably, Henderson is arguing that, as a result of these
allegedly erroneous findings, the district court abused its
discretion by denying her motion for reconsideration. In her
motion for reconsideration, however, Henderson expressly stated
that she was not asserting a Title VII claim. Thus, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying Henderson’s motion
for reconsideration based on these allegedly erroneous findings.
Finally, Henderson argues that the district court abused its
discretion by denying her post-judgment motion to file an amended
complaint, in which she attempted to assert a new cause of action.
However, Henderson has not made the requisite showing that she
“could not reasonably have raised the new matter prior to the trial
court’s merits ruling.” Briddle v. Scott, 63 F.3d 364, 379 (5th
Cir. 1995). Thus, Henderson has not demonstrated that the district
court abused its discretion by denying her motion to file an
amended complaint.
2
For the above reasons, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
3