Waite v. Novotny et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that plaintiff's motion to alter or amend order and judgment 70 is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (copy mailed to pro se party)(CJP)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA GLENN R. WAITE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MARK E. NOVOTNY; RICHARD A. ) SAVAGE, M.D.; JAMES A. ) SNOWDEN; JUDGE EVERETT INBODY;) JUDGE JOHN IRWIN; JUDGE ) RICHARD SIEVERS and JUSTICE ) MICHAEL HEAVICAN, ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion to alter or amend order and judgment (Filing No. 70). Defendants
Mark Novotny and Richard Savage filed a brief in opposition to the motion (Filing No. 72). The motion will be denied.
Plaintiff's motion is brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and argues that the court "erred" when it entered its order and judgment on March 5, 2009 (Filing No. 70). As set forth by the Eighth Circuit, "Rule 59(e) motions
serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. . . . Such motions cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment." U.S. v. Metro. St. Louis
Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Here, plaintiff simply reargues the merits of his case. In particular, plaintiff asserts new arguments and legal theories regarding the portion the Court's memorandum opinion which dismissed some of plaintiff's claims because those claims were "yet another `impermissible attempt to attack collaterally the resolution' of Waite's previously-adjudicated claims." (Filing In his
No. 68, citing Waite v. Kopf, 41 F. App'x 23, 23 (2002).)
motion and supporting briefs, plaintiff does not point to any manifest error or new evidence. Instead, he objects to the
Court's ruling and argues the merits of his claims in this matter and the merits of his 1991 case. Plaintiff may have advanced
those theories and arguments prior to dismissal but chose not to do so. 59(e). Thus, plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Rule Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to alter or amend order and judgment (Filing No. 70) is denied. DATED this 21st day of August, 2009. BY THE COURT: /s/ Lyle E. Strom _____________________________ LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge 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?