Britton v. Southaven Police Department et al

Filing 91

ORDER denying 87 Motion to Alter Judgment. Signed by District Judge Michael P. Mills on 8/18/17. (cr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION MEIKA DESEAN BRITTON PLAINTIFF v. No. 3:16CV84-MPM-RP SOUTHAVEN POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF=S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER This matter comes before the court on the plaintiff=s motion for reconsideration of the court=s May 31, 2017, memorandum opinion and final judgment granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and entering judgment for the defendants. 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 August, 2017. /s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

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?