Rufus v. Bailey et al

Filing 65

ORDER denying 63 Objection to Report and Recommendations filed by Michael Alonza Rufus, which the Court treats as a Rule 59(e) motion. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 10-28-09 (ECW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI WESTERN DIVISION MICHAEL ALONZA RUFUS, #99284-071 VS. BRIAN BAILEY, ET AL. ORDER This cause is before the Court on the plaintiff's "Mandatory Judicial Notice with Objection(s)" (docket entry 63), which the Court construes as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), since it was deposited for mailing in the prison mailing system within ten days of entry of judgment. The PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:08-cv-240(DCB)(MTP) DEFENDANTS

plaintiff's motion contains a number of allegations that this Court lacked jurisdiction to hear his case, all of which are without merit. The Court therefore denies the plaintiff's motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff's "Mandatory Judicial Notice with Objection(s)" (docket entry 63), which the Court construes as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this the 28th day of October, 2009.

/s/ David Bramlette UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE