ELDRIDGE v. PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
ORDER denying 31 Motion for Reconsideration. There was no error of law or of understanding the claims or the underlying record in the recent denial of Terry Eldridges petition for writ of habeas corpus or the denial of a certificate of appealability. No new evidence has been offered. Copy to petitioner via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/3/2012. (RSF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
There was no error of law or of understanding the claims or the underlying
record in the recent denial of Terry Eldridge’s petition for writ of habeas corpus or the
denial of a certificate of appealability. No new evidence has been offered.
Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion to alter or amend  is denied. 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.
Putnamville Correctional Facility
1946 West U.S. 40
Greencastle, IN 46135
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
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?