JOHN STEELE, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's Motions for Answers (Doc. #91), construed as a motion for reconsideration, filed on May 16, 2005, and plaintiff's Motion to Add to the Motion (Doc. #92), filed on May 17, 2005. The Commissioner filed an Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #93) on May 23, 2005.
As a preliminary matter, plaintiff's "Motion to Add to the Motion of Plaintiff Dorn's Motion of May 12, 2005 That Was Left Off by Oversight. That Plaintiff Believes Important to This Case," will be granted to the extent that plaintiff wishes to make additional arguments not included in the Motions for Answers.
The Eleventh Circuit has described a motion for reconsideration as falling within the ambit of either Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60 (b) (motion for relief from judgment). Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchases Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 806 (11th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1040 (1994). Having reviewed plaintiff's arguments, the Court finds that the arguments presented have no bearing on the Court's findings regarding the Freedom of Information Act requests, and that plaintiff has failed to articulate good cause to justify the extraordinary remedy of reconsideration.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Motions for Answers (Doc. #91), construed as a motion for reconsideration, is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff's Motion to Add to the Motion (Doc. #92) is GRANTED to the extent that the additional argument was considered.
DONE AND ORDERED