Donnahue George v. Commissioner of Social Security

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________

No. 20-11300
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:19-cv-61799-FAM

DONNAHUE GEORGE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.
________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 3, 2020)
Before BRANCH, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-11300 Date Filed: 11/03/2020 Page: 1 of 4

2

Donnahue George (“George”) appeals the district court’s order denying his
motion for reconsideration of its prior order affirming the Social Security
Administration’s (“SSA”) denial of his application for Title II disability insurance
benefits (“DIB”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On appeal, George does not
address the order denying his motion for reconsideration. Instead, he only discusses
the merits of the district court’s underlying order, arguing that (1) substantial
evidence does not support the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) finding that he
did not have a medically determinable impairment during the relevant insured
period, (2) he was entitled to a trial work period before his prior closed period of
disability was terminated in 2001, and (3) the Appeals Council improperly denied
his request for review of the ALJ’s order.
We review the district court’s denial of a Rule 59 motion for reconsideration
for an abuse of discretion. Drago v. Jenne, 453 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2006).
“The only grounds for granting [a Rule 59 motion] are newly-discovered evidence
or manifest errors of law or fact.” Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1344 (11th Cir.
2007) (alteration in original) (quoting In re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir.
1999)). “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 the
judgment.” Id. (quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757,
763 (11th Cir. 2005)). A party’s disagreement with the court’s decision, absent a
USCA11 Case: 20-11300 Date Filed: 11/03/2020 Page: 2 of 4

3

showing of manifest error, is not sufficient to demonstrate entitlement to relief under
Rule 59(e). See Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344 (11th Cir.
2010).
As an initial matter, George lists only the district court’s March 19, 2020,
order denying his motion for reconsideration in his Notice of Appeal, notably
omitting the district court’s underlying order affirming the denial of his DIB
application. Therefore, our review is limited to the motion for reconsideration. See
Osterneck v. E.T. Barwick Indus., Inc., 825 F.2d 1521, 1528 (11th Cir. 1987) (“The
general rule in this circuit is that an appellate court has jurisdiction to review only
those judgments, orders or portions thereof which are specified in an appellant’s
notice of appeal.”).
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying George’s
motion for reconsideration. George did not raise any newly discovered evidence or
manifest errors of law or fact in his motion before the district court. Instead, George
merely disagreed with the district court’s decision and relitigated the same
arguments that he previously made in his motion for summary judgment and in his
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on the motions for
summary judgment. Notably, George fails to make any argument to this Court that
the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration was an abuse of
discretion. Instead, he again relitigates the same issues he presented in his motion
USCA11 Case: 20-11300 Date Filed: 11/03/2020 Page: 3 of 4

4

for summary judgment. Because George fails to demonstrate entitlement to relief
under Rule 59(e), we affirm. See Arthur, 500 F.3d at 1344.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 20-11300 Date Filed: 11/03/2020 Page: 4 of 4