Poursaied v. The Waverly Apartment Homes et al

Filing 36

ORDER denying 32 Motion to Reappear after Case Dismissal. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 1/5/2018. Copy sent to Shahnaz Poursaied via US Mail to 3302 New Bern Ridge Dr., Apt. 108, Raleigh, NC and to 27610.to 3930 Pulaski Pike, Apt. C-14, Huntsville, AL 3581. (Stouch, L.) Modified on 1/8/2018 to add additional mailing address (Stouch, L.).

'IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:17-CV-141-BO
SHAHNAZ POURSAIED,
Plaintiff,

v.

)
)
)
)

)

ORDER

)
THE WAVERLY APARTMENT HOMES )
and UNLIMITED RECOVERY,
)
)
Defendants. )

This cause comes before the Court on plaintiffs prose request to reappear after a case
dismissal, which the Court construes liberally as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Defendants have responded to the motion and the matter is ripe for ruling.
For the reasons that follow, plaintiffs motion is denied.
DISCUSSION
By order entered September 8, 2017, this Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss and
dismissed plaintiffs complaint in its entirety. [DE 30]. On September 28, 2017, plaintiff filed the
instant motion. In her motion, plaintiff states that she received the dismissal of her case after she
was released from the hospital. Plaintiff cites further instances of what she has characterized as
violations of her basic human rights, such as noise from the· flushing of a toilet in the apartment
above her own, and asks that the Court be her advocate for an end to torture inflicted upon her by
defendants. [DE 32].
In order to succeed on a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), the
mov'ant must demonstrate that the judgment under reconsideration should be altered or amended.

The Fourth Circuit has identified three circumstances that justify altering or amending ajudgment:
(1) to incorporate an intervening change in the law, (2) to incorporate new evidence which was

unavailable when the court made its decision, and (3) to rectify a clear legal error or prevent
manifest injustice. See Bogart v. Chappell, 396 F .3d 548, 555 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Pac. Ins. Co.
v. Am. Nat'! Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1996)).

Plaintiff has proffered no basis which would justify altering or amending the judgment.
Liberally construing her motion to argue that dismissal of her cause would result in a manifest
injustice, plaintiff has nonetheless failed to convince the Court that its judgment should be altered.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs motion [DE 32] is therefore DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this~ day of January, 2018.

ERRENCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DIST

2