CARTER v. WARDEN, F.C.I. TERRE HAUTE IN.

Filing 11

ORDER denying 10 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration - The petitioner's motion to reconsider 10 is treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment and as so understood is denied. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/14/2012. (copy to Petitioner via US Mail) (JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
BRIAN CARTER,
Petitioner,
vs.
WARDEN, FCI TERRE HAUTE, IN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-432-JMS-TAB

ENTRY
The petitioner’s motion to reconsider [10] is treated as a motion to alter or
amend judgment and as so understood is denied. The reason for this ruling is that
the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly dismissed for the reasons
explained in the Entry of April 6, 2012. Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542,
546 (7th Cir. 2006) (AAltering or amending a judgment under Rule 59(e) is
permissible when there is newly discovered evidence or there has been a manifest
error of law or fact.@)(citing Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d
524, 529 (7th Cir. 2000)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

05/14/2012
Date: __________________
Distribution:
Brian Carter
13851-424
United States Penitentiary
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. Box 33
Terre Haute, IN 47808

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana