Huskey v. Fisher, 1:17CV140-SA-JMV. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. Mississippi
Number: infdco20180521824
Visitors: 7
Filed: May 18, 2018
Latest Update: May 18, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION [33] FOR ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT SHARION AYCOCK , District Judge . This matter comes before the court on the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's order [27] adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and dismissing some claims and parties. The court interprets the motion, using the liberal standard for pro se litigants set forth in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), as a motion to amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P.
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION [33] FOR ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT SHARION AYCOCK , District Judge . This matter comes before the court on the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's order [27] adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and dismissing some claims and parties. The court interprets the motion, using the liberal standard for pro se litigants set forth in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), as a motion to amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. ..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION [33] FOR ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
SHARION AYCOCK, District Judge.
This matter comes before the court on the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's order [27] adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and dismissing some claims and parties. The court interprets the motion, using the liberal standard for pro se litigants set forth in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), as a motion to amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), which must be filed within 28 days of entry of judgment. An order granting relief under Rule 59(e) is appropriate when: (1) there has been an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) where the movant presents newly discovered evidence that was previously unavailable, or (3) to correct a manifest error of law or fact. Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003). The plaintiff has neither asserted nor proven any of the justifications to amend a judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). As such, the plaintiff's request to alter or amend judgment is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
