Jeffrey Pleasant v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999686385-2]; dismissing Motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc filed by Appellant Jeffrey A. Pleasant [999694881-2]. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00218-REP-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999772316]. Mailed to: Jeffrey Pleasant. [15-7549]

Appeal: 15-7549

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7549

JEFFREY A. PLEASANT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:15-cv-00218-REP-RCY)

Submitted:

February 26, 2016

Decided:

March 11, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7549

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey

A.

Pleasant

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of
a prior order. ∗

A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion

only for the following limited reasons: “(1) to accommodate an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new
evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error
of law or prevent manifest injustice.”

Mayfield v. Nat’l Ass’n

for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir.
2012)

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).

We

review

the

district court’s denial of a Rule 59(e) motion for abuse of
discretion.

Id.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that Pleasant’s
arguments

are

without

merit,

as

his

claims

either

fail

to

establish that the district court abused its discretion or rely
on waived arguments.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s order.
We dismiss without prejudice Pleasant’s premature petition for
rehearing.
legal

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions

are

adequately

∗

presented

in

the

materials

Pleasant separately appealed, and we affirmed, the
district court’s underlying order.
Pleasant v. Clarke, 620 F.
App’x 197 (4th Cir. 2015) (No. 15-6731).

2

Appeal: 15-7549

before

Doc: 9

this

Filed: 03/11/2016

court

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3