¶1 Kelvin Wells appeals, pro se, the 5 November 2007 denial of his motion for reconsideration. The denial of such a motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. E.g., LeClerc v. Webb, 419 F.3d 405, 412 n. 13 (5th Cir.2005) (citation omitted). In his motion, Wells was required to establish either manifest error of law or fact, or to present newly discovered evidence. E.g., Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir.2004) (citation omitted). Instead, he offered nothing but a conclusory statement of his entitlement to relief.
¶2 AFFIRMED.