The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure lack any procedural tool titled a “motion for reconsideration.” Rather, a party may file a motion under Rule 59(e) to amend a judgment or under Rule 60(b) to seek relief from a final judgment. Where a post-judgment motion fails to identify its basis for challenging a judgment, yet falls within the filing deadline set by Rule 59, we have considered it a Rule 59(e) motion. See Hood v. Hood, 59 F.3d 40, 43 n.1 (6th Cir. 1995); Westerfield v. United States, 366 Fed.Appx. 614, 619 (6th Cir. 2010) (unpublished). And an appeal from an order denying a Rule 59(e) motion allows us to review the underlying judgment. See Hood, 59 F.3d at 43 n.1; Westerfield, 366 Fed.Appx. at 619 (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) (<HOLDING>). Here, Scadden’s motion for reconsideration
holding that an argument raised for the first time in a rule 59e motion is waived on appeal holding that an appeal from a denial of a rule 59e motion should have been construed as seeking review of the underlying judgment holding that the standard of review is abuse of discretion and an appeal from denial of rule 60b relief does not bring up the underlying judgment for review holding that the appellate court should have construed the notice of appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate the judgment as an attempt to appeal from the underlying judgment holding that appeal from denial of rule 60b motion raised for review only the district courts order of denial and not the underlying judgment itself