Olekanma v. Wolfe et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Plaintiff 10/5/17 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 10/5/2017. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Civil Action No.
JOHN S. WOLFE, Warden, Jessup
Correctional Facility, et al.
(ECF No. 82).
For the following reasons, the motion will be
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), or for relief from a judgment or order under
A motion to alter or amend filed within 28
days of the judgment is analyzed under Rule 59(e); if the motion
is filed later, Rule 60(b) controls.
MLC Auto, LLC v. Town of
S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 280 (4th Cir.2008); Graves v. One W.
Bank, FSB, No. DKC-13-3343, 2014 WL 994366, at *1 n.2 (D.Md.
Mar. 13, 2014).
Although Plaintiff purports to bring his motion
for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(3) and (b)(6), because it
was filed within twenty-eight days of entry of the underlying
order, it is properly analyzed under Rule 59(e). See Robinson v.
Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 412 (4th Cir.2010).
Courts have recognized three limited grounds for granting a
accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to
correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.
United States ex rel. Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co.,
305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am.
Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998), cert.
denied, 538 U.S. 1012 (2003)).
Plaintiff’s motion does not satisfy the standard of Rule
amounts to an argument that there was fraud which led to a
Plaintiff, however, has failed to identify
any actions that would amount to fraud or any manifest injustice
in the judgment.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
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?