Quadri v. The United States

Filing 22

ORDER denying 20 Motion for Reconsideration filed by Taofeek A. Quadri. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on May 25, 2017. (mll)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION TAOFEEK A. QUADRI V. PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 4:16-CV-04003 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; and ERIC K. FANNING, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Dismissal. ECF No. 20. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider the Order dismissing his case. Defendants have responded to the motion. ECF No. 21. The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration. “Rule 59(e) motions serve the limited function of correcting ‘manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.’” Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist. v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Innovative Home Health Care v. P.T.-O.T. Assoc. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998)). “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. After reviewing Plaintiff’s motion, the Court is not convinced that Plaintiff points to a manifest error of law or fact that would justify amending or altering its prior ruling. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Dismissal (ECF No. 20) should be and hereby is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 25th day of May, 2017. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey 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?