Young v. Hobbs
ORDER denying 37 Motion for Reconsideration of 35 Judgment. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 2/28/12. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
RAY HOBBS, Director,
Arkansas Department of Correction
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
“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
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?