BILLINGS v. FBI DEPARTMENT DIVISION

Filing 12

ENTRY - Plaintiff's Objection, treated as a Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 11 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/4/2012. Copy Mailed. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
EDDIE HAROLD BILLINGS, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FBI DEPARTMENT DIVISION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-1196-TWP-TAB

ENTRY
The plaintiff has objected to the dismissal of the action.
Based on its timing and content, the objection is treated as a motion to alter
or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
See Borrero v. City of Chicago, 456 F.3d 698, 701-02 (7th Cir. 2006) (explaining that
whether a motion filed within the time frame contemplated by Rule 59(e) should be
analyzed under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
depends on the substance of the motion, not on the timing or label affixed to it).
Rule 59(e) "authorizes relief when a moving party 'clearly establish[es] either
a manifest error of law or fact' or 'present[s] newly discovered evidence.'" Souter v.
International Union, 993 F.2d 595, 599 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting Federal Deposit Ins.
Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986)).
The plaintiff’s objection does not address the reason for the dismissal and
does not contain a coherent statement as to why that dismissal should not remain
in effect. There was in this case no manifest error of law or fact. The court did not
misapprehend the plaintiff’s claim, nor did it misapply the law to the claim in
finding that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s objection, treated as a motion for relief from judgment
[Dkt. 11], is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

10/04/2012
Date: __________________

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Eddie Harold Billings, Jr.
403 N. Rural Street
Indianapolis, IN 46201