Huskey v. Fisher et al

Filing 56

ORDER denying 33 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 5/18/18. (tab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
MATTHEW HUSKEY
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 1:17CV140-SA-JMV

MARSHALL FISHER, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION [33]
FOR ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
This matter comes before the court on the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the
court’s order [27] adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and dismissing
some claims and parties. The court interprets the motion, using the liberal standard for pro se
litigants set forth in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), as a motion to amend judgment
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), which must be filed within 28 days of entry of judgment. An order
granting relief under Rule 59(e) is appropriate when: (1) there has been an intervening change
in the controlling law, (2) where the movant presents newly discovered evidence that was
previously unavailable, or (3) to correct a manifest error of law or fact. Schiller v. Physicians
Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003). The plaintiff has neither asserted nor proven
any of the justifications to amend a judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). As such, the
plaintiff’s request to alter or amend judgment is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this, the 18th day of May, 2018.

/s/ Sharion Aycock
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE