Filed: Sep. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 14, 2015
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT ROBERT E. BLACKBURN , District Judge . This matter is before me on the Motion To Alter or Amend the Judgment [#159] 1 filed October 15, 2014. I deny the motion. Under FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e), a court may alter or amend a judgment. The primary bases for a motion under Rule 59(e) are (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT ROBERT E. BLACKBURN , District Judge . This matter is before me on the Motion To Alter or Amend the Judgment [#159] 1 filed October 15, 2014. I deny the motion. Under FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e), a court may alter or amend a judgment. The primary bases for a motion under Rule 59(e) are (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. ..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge.
This matter is before me on the Motion To Alter or Amend the Judgment [#159]1 filed October 15, 2014. I deny the motion.
Under FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e), a court may alter or amend a judgment. The primary bases for a motion under Rule 59(e) are
(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). The plaintiff, Shane Johnson, asks that an order [#147] which resulted in the dismissal of certain claims and certain defendants be altered. That motion adopted the recommendation [#139] of the United States Magistrate Judge concerning certain dispositive motions. Mr. Johnson contends his second motion [#146] for an extension of time to file objections to the recommendation should have been granted rather than denied and contends his objections to the recommendation are valid and merit alteration of the order [#147].
I addressed the second motion for extension of time in the order [#147] challenged by Mr. Johnson.
In his second motion for extension of time, Mr. Johnson contends his law library access has been limited to two hours per week, notes the other cases he is litigating, and contends he needs more time "to distinguish cases cited in the R&R." Motion [#146]. In addition, Mr. Johnson says "I have some really good objections and this motion is not for the purposes of delay." Id. He does not specify, even in a summary fashion, the bases for any of his proposed objections.
The facts, issues, and legal authorities addressed in the recommendation [#139] are detailed in the underlying motion [#100] of the defendants, filed October 17, 2013, the 32 page response [#116] of the plaintiff, filed December 27, 2013, and the reply[#120] of the defendants, filed January 22, 2014. With this background, Mr. Johnson has had ample time to familiarize himself with the issues and authorities on which the defendants rely and which are addressed in the recommendation. Given this context, I find that Mr. Johnson has not stated in his motion [#146] good cause for an additional extension of time to file objections to the recommendation. Therefore, his motion for extension of time [#146] is denied.
Order [#147], pp. 2-3.
In his present motion, Mr. Johnson does not point to (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Thus, his motion should be denied.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion To Alter or Amend the Judgment [#159] filed October 15, 2014, is denied.
