McNutt v. Hines

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying 6 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 3/23/2012. cc:counsel (KJA)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH JESSE R. MCNUTT v. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12CV-29-R ROBERT JEFFREY HINES DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order on March 6, 2012, dismissing the instant action upon the initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997) (DNs 4 and 5). The Court dismissed the action on grounds that Defendant, a state-court special judge, is entitled to absolute judicial immunity in regards to Plaintiff’s claims. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a “motion to amend” citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), which governs amendments to pleadings. Because Plaintiff’s case was dismissed prior to the filing of this motion to amend, IT IS ORDERED that the motion (DN 6) is DENIED as moot. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to amend this Court’s Order dismissing the action, the Court construes the motion as a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds no reason to alter or vacate its prior decision. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to amend (DN 6) is DENIED. Date: cc: March 23, 2012 Plaintiff, pro se Defendant 4413.010

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?