ELLIOTT v. ROLLINS, 5:11-CV-693-FL. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20141023q04
Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 24, 2014
Summary: ORDER LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, District Judge. This matter comes before the court on plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying her motion for a new trial (DE 117), which is opposed. The background of the case having been set forth in prior order, the court incorporates that statement herein. Plaintiff amplifies upon her reasons that she was not given a fair trial, including that perjured testimony was received. Having carefully considered the arguments of the parties, the
Summary: ORDER LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, District Judge. This matter comes before the court on plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying her motion for a new trial (DE 117), which is opposed. The background of the case having been set forth in prior order, the court incorporates that statement herein. Plaintiff amplifies upon her reasons that she was not given a fair trial, including that perjured testimony was received. Having carefully considered the arguments of the parties, the c..
More
ORDER
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, District Judge.
This matter comes before the court on plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying her motion for a new trial (DE 117), which is opposed. The background of the case having been set forth in prior order, the court incorporates that statement herein. Plaintiff amplifies upon her reasons that she was not given a fair trial, including that perjured testimony was received. Having carefully considered the arguments of the parties, the court denies plaintiff's motion, for reasons previously outlined, where there is no basis under law for the relief she herein seeks. The court's decision was not in error and, therefore, there is no cause to set it aside.
The court understands the heartfelt nature of plaintiff's plea. It recognizes the importance to her of this case, and her great disappointment with the jury verdict. However, the court cannot revive the matter as plaintiff requests.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
