BUCHMEYER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT CHIEF JUDGE.
On April 17, 2000, this Court, by Memorandum Opinion and Order, granted Defendant Sears Termite Pest Control, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss. Now before this Court is Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Reconsideration, filed on May 1, 2000. Plaintiff asks this Court to reconsider its Order granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Motions for reconsideration are permitted only in limited situations, primarily "`to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.'" Waltman v. International Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989) (quoting Keene Corp. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 561 F. Supp. 656, 665 (N.D. Ill. 1982), aff'd, 735 F.2d 1367, and aff'd, 736 F.2d 388 (7th Cir. 1984)). In their motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff contends this Court erred in holding that (1) Plaintiff was not discharged or subjected to an adverse employment action; (2) Mr. Sloan was not Plaintiff's "supervisor" as defined by the Supreme Court, therefore, his alleged actions did not subject Sears Termite to vicarious liability; (3) any actions taken against Plaintiff did not culminate in a tangible employment action; (4) Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of Sears Termite's complaint procedure; (5) Plaintiff was offered a transfer and rejected the offer; and (6) Plaintiff was not replaced by someone outside the protected class.
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration fails to present any evidence or legal authority that was not know to him prior to entry of this Court's order granting Sears Termite's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff disagreement with this Court's ruling, respectful or not, does not create a clear error in fact or law by this Court. If the Plaintiff wishes to contest this Court's factual understanding or legal reasoning, he should do so on appeal. See Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 987 F.2d 1199, 1203 (5th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff has failed to present any new arguments or evidence to change this Court's determination that Defendant's motion for summary judgment was correctly granted.
Because the Plaintiff has failed to present any new evidence or law to justify a different conclusion Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Reconsideration of May 1, 2000, is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that costs are taxed to the parties incurring the same. It is so ORDERED.