LAWRENCE PIERSOL, Chief Judge, District
Pending before the Court is a Motion to Reconsider, Doc, 14, the Judgment dismissing CIV 02-4087. The Motion has been briefed by both parties. The Court denies the Motion to Reconsider.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a "Motion for Reconsideration." Rather such motions are generally reviewed as either a Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment, or a Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order. See Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 989 (8th Cir. 1999). Because this motion was directed to a final judgment, rather than a nonfinal order, consideration of the motion under Rule 59(e) is appropriate. Id.
Rule 59(e) provides, "[a]ny motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment," Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Reconsider on April 10, 2003. The Court's Judgment dismissing the case, Doc. 13, was filed on March 19, 2003. Because more than 10 days elapsed between entry of the Judgment and filing of the Motion to Reconsider, the Motion is procedurally defaulted and is denied.
Even assuming that the Motion was not procedurally defaulted, after carefully reviewing the briefs, the Court finds no reason to set aside its earlier Judgment. The Court makes the following observations concerning the Plaintiffs' arguments:
1. That the Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies has previously been determined by this Court. The Plaintiffs offer no new argument or evidence to demonstrate their compliance with administrative remedies.
2. Plaintiffs failed to comply with either the procedures or the form requirements of
26 C.F.R. § 301.7433-1(e). Plaintiffs argue that the Court should liberally construe the information supplied by pro se litigants and find that the form was proper. The Court, however, again finds that failure to comply with the statute demonstrates failure to exhaust administrative remedies, a prerequisite to this Court having jurisdiction over the claim.
3. That Plaintiffs lack standing to sue on behalf of Mathis Implement, Inc. for wrongful levy, has been determined numerous times by this Court. The Plaintiffs offer no new argument or evidence to alter this determination.
4. That the Statute of Limitations should be tolled by virtue of the Defendant's actions is legally unsupportable. With very few exceptions, the Statute of Limitations applies to
this claim, and that this claim was brought far past the applicable Statute of Limitations has been determined. The Plaintiffs offer no equitable reasons why the Court should find that the Statute of Limitations should be tolled.
5. Plaintiffs' argument that the IRS must file a civil lawsuit in order to serve administrative levies is incorrect.
26 U.S.C. § 6331.
IT IS ORDERED, that the Motion to Reconsider, Doc. 14, is denied.