JOE McDADE, Chief District Judge
Before the Court is Defendant Robert Lawrence's Objection to the Order of the Court filed April 17th, 2003 [Doc. #86]. The Court construes this as a motion to vacate default pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and denies it for the reasons that follow.
"Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence."Caisse Nationale de Credit v. CBI Industries, 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, it is not appropriate to argue matters that could have been raised in prior motions or rehash previously rejected arguments in a motion to reconsider. See Id. at 1270. A Rule 59(e) motion should be granted if there exists "a manifest error of law or fact," so as to enable "the court to correct its own errors and thus avoid unnecessary appellate procedures." Moro v. Shell Oil Co., 91 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 1996).
Defendant's instant motion fails to meet the standards governing Rule 59(e) motions and is merely a rehash of the arguments set forth and rejected earlier. Accordingly, Defendant Robert Lawrence's Objection to the Order of the Court filed April 17th, 2003 [Doc. #86], which the Court construes as a motion to vacate default pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) is DENIED.