Young v. Hobbs

Filing 38

ORDER denying 37 Motion for Reconsideration of 35 Judgment. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 2/28/12. (kpr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION LESLIE YOUNG ADC #709094 VS. PETITIONER 5:10CV00102 JMM/JTR RAY HOBBS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT ORDER Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (Doc. #37). For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied. “Rule 59(e) motions serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” United States v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and additional citation omitted). “Such motions cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment.” Id. The Court finds that Petitioner has failed to establish any manifest errors of law or fact, or to present any newly discovered evidence. Petitioner’s motion also seeks a copy of the ruling, or opinion, that explained why her objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings were denied. The record reflects that the Clerk of the Court sent Petitioner (1) a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s December 13, 2011 Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition; (2) a copy of this Court’s February 7, 2012 Order which adopted , over the objections of the Petitioner, the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition; and (3) a copy of the accompanying Judgment. There are no additional orders or opinions that specifically address each of Petitioner’s objections. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 28 day of February , 2012. James M. Moody United States District Judge

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?