ELDRIDGE v. PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Filing 32

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
TERRY ELDRIDGE,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT, Putnamville
Correctional Facility,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:10-cv-192-JMS-DKL

ENTRY
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 [31] 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.

02/03/2012
Date: _________________

Distribution:
Terry Eldridge
#954923
Putnamville Correctional Facility
1946 West U.S. 40
Greencastle, IN 46135
[e-mail]

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