United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER AND REASONS
IVAN L.R. LEMELLE, District Judge.
Considering the "Motion for Reconsideration" (Rec. Doc. No. 38), and defendants oppositions thereto, (Rec. Doc. No. 40, Laurie Hutchings, R.N.), (Rec. Doc. No. 41, Slidell defendants),  (Rec. Doc. No. 43, Vinson Guard Services), 
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. In granting various motions to dismiss as unopposed, this Court advised:
Local Rule 7.5 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that memoranda in opposition with citations of authorities be filed and served no later than eight days before the noticed submission date. A pro se plaintiff is required to comply with all federal and local rules of procedure and meet all deadlines, under penalty of sanctions, including dismissal of claims.
A motion for reconsideration of this order based on the appropriate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, if any, must be filed within thirty (30) days of this order. The motion must be accompanied by opposition memoranda to the original motion.
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration on May 22, 2015. The Motion presents a timely challenge to five dismissal orders, dated April 23, 2015. Rec. Docs. No. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35. On April 6, 2015, the Court previously granted as unopposed, a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Slidell Memorial Hospital. Rec. Doc. No. 22. Plaintiff neither challenged nor sought reconsideration of that order.
Because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a general motion for reconsideration, a motion for reconsideration should be treated as a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) if filed within 28 days of the challenged ruling or judgment and under Rule 60 if filed beyond that time. Bass v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 211 F.3d 959, 962 (5th Cir. 2000)(discussing Rule 59(e) pre-2009 Amendment). The instant motion cannot be construed as a motion to alter or amend under Rule 59(e) because it was filed beyond the 28 day period for such a motion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), and no motion to extend this time was filed.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides Grounds for Relief' from a court order for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it ...