Nunnelee v. United States of America
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 42 MOTION to Amend/Correct the September 26, 2013 Judgment. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 12/10/2013. (JLC)
2013 Dec-10 PM 04:27
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) Case No.: 4:11-CV-2039-VEH
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This property damage action was brought against the United States under the
Federal Tort Claims Act. (Doc. 1). The action is now before the court on Plaintiff’s
Rule 59(e) Motion To Alter or Amend the September 26, 2013 Judgment (Motion,
doc. 42; Judgment, doc. 41). The Motion challenges the court’s decision to dismiss
this action without prejudice on the basis that Plaintiff lacks standing to assert the
claims made. (Memorandum Opinion, doc. 40; Judgment of Dismissal, doc. 41).
Defendant has opposed the Motion (doc. 45), and Plaintiff has replied (doc. 47).
Therefore, the Motion is now under submission. For the reasons explained below, the
Motion is DENIED.
The standards governing Rule 59(e) motions are straightforward:
[The Eleventh Circuit] review[s] the denial of a Rule 59 motion
for abuse of discretion. Drago v. Jenne, 453 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir.
2006). “The only grounds for granting [a Rule 59] motion are
newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” In re
Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999). “[A] Rule 59(e) motion
[cannot be used] to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present
evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.”
Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763
(11th Cir. 2005).
Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007).
In his Motion, Plaintiff asks this court to “alter or amend its Order on the issue
of [Plaintiff’s] standing to bring this action, deny [Defendant’s] Motion to Dismiss,
and enter an order to stay the Court’s decision on [Plaintiff’s] standing until
resolution of issues pertinent to such determination in Alabama state court.” (Doc.
42, p.1). Plaintiff also “asks the Court to reconsider its ruling on his standing to bring
a claim against [Defendant] for negligence regardless of [Plaintiff’s] legal interest in
the real property.” (Id.). Plaintiff argues, in support of his Motion:
1. That he does have “‘some separate type of cognizable right to the possession
of the property beyond merely continuing to reside there after the death of the
owner.’” (Id., p. 2., quoting Memorandum Opinion, doc. 40; see also Motion, ¶¶ 1
through 5). Plaintiff’s“cognizable right” argument is based on the fact that Plaintiff
“is a party to a currently-pending lawsuit in Alabama state court where the validity
of that right will be determined.” However, this argument fails to meet the Rule 59(e)
standard, as it presents neither “newly-discovered evidence [n]or manifest errors of
law or fact.” Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d at 1343.
That the court was wrong when it found that, absent a “cognizable right,”
Plaintiff lacks standing. (Motion, ¶¶ 6 through 8). However, this argument also fails
to meet the Rule 59(e) standard.1
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED this the 10th day of December, 2013.
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS
United States District Judge
Plaintiff does not cite any authority in support of either argument, either in his Motion
(doc. 42) or in his Reply Brief (doc. 47). The court is not obligated to consider such an
undeveloped argument. See Flanigan's Enters., Inc. v. Fulton County, Ga., 242 F.3d 976, 987
n.16 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding that a party waives an argument if the party "fail[s] to elaborate or
provide any citation of authority in support" of the argument); Ordower v. Feldman, 826 F.2d
1569, 1576 (7th Cir. 1987) (stating that an argument made without citation to authority is
insufficient to raise an issue before the court).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?