Richmond v. State of Minnesota
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff Courtney Richmond's Motion for Reconsideration 22 is DENIED. 2. Line 2 of Paragraph 4 on page 2 of the April 21, 2014 Order 11 is amended to read "§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii)." (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 5/28/14. (GRR) cc: Richmond on 5/28/2014 (JAM).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil File No. 14-749 (MJD/LIB)
STATE OF MINNESOTA,
Courtney Richmond, pro se.
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Courtney
Richmond’s Motion for Reconsideration. [Docket No. 22] On April 21, 2014, the
Court adopted the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Brisbois and summarily dismissed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii). Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its
The district court’s decision on a motion for reconsideration rests within its
discretion. Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 413 (8th Cir. 1988).
Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence. . . . Nor should a motion for reconsideration serve as the
occasion to tender new legal theories for the first time.
Id. at 414 (citation omitted).
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s submission and concludes that the
Court’s April 21, 2014 Order contains no manifest errors of law or fact. Nor has
Plaintiff offered new evidence that would alter the Court’s Order. However, the
Court will correct a typographical error on page 2 of the April 21 Order.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
1. Plaintiff Courtney Richmond’s Motion for Reconsideration
[Docket No. 22] is DENIED.
2. Line 2 of Paragraph 4 on page 2 of the April 21, 2014 Order
[Docket No. 11] is amended to read “§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii).”
Dated: May 28, 2014
s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
United States District Court
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?