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)

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