Tyous v. Berryhill, 4:17-cv-04070. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20181023702
Visitors: 11
Filed: Oct. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 18, 2018
Summary: ORDER BARRY A. BRYANT , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Judgment. ECF No. 16. Plaintiff filed this Motion pro se on September 28, 2018. Id. Upon review of this Motion, the Court finds it should be DENIED. Notably, the Court finds Plaintiff is seeking relief pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Rule 59(e), such a motion must be filed "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment." In the present
Summary: ORDER BARRY A. BRYANT , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Judgment. ECF No. 16. Plaintiff filed this Motion pro se on September 28, 2018. Id. Upon review of this Motion, the Court finds it should be DENIED. Notably, the Court finds Plaintiff is seeking relief pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Rule 59(e), such a motion must be filed "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment." In the present ..
More
ORDER
BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Judgment. ECF No. 16. Plaintiff filed this Motion pro se on September 28, 2018. Id. Upon review of this Motion, the Court finds it should be DENIED.
Notably, the Court finds Plaintiff is seeking relief pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Rule 59(e), such a motion must be filed "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment." In the present action, Plaintiff's judgment was entered on June 28, 2018. Plaintiff, however, did not file this Motion until September 28, 2018, three months after the judgment was entered. Pursuant to Rule 59(e), such a date is well outside the time-period for filing this Rule 59(e) Motion. Accordingly, the Court DENIES this Motion as untimely.
Source: Leagle
