IBARRA v. RIVENBARK

Filing 58

ORDER signed by JUDGE N. C. TILLEY, JR on 3/11/2014 adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation 48 ; that Petitioner's Petition for Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Doc. # 47 ) is treated as a motion to alter or to amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and is denied. FURTHER that Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Amend to Supplement Petition for Rehearing and/or Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Doc. # 50 ) is denied. FURTHER that Petitioner's Motion to Expedite Judgment (Doc. # 54 ) is denied as moot. (Sheets, Jamie)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

SABAS IBARRA,
Petitioner,
v.
ASST. SUP. R.R. RIVENBARK,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11CV530

ORDER
On July 19, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Recommendation
recommending that Petitioner’s Petition for Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En
Banc (Doc. # 47) be treated as a motion to alter or to amend a judgment under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and be denied. (Doc. # 48). The Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation was served on Petitioner on that same date. Also on the same date,
Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Amend to Supplement Petition for Rehearing
and/or Petition for Rehearing En Banc. (Doc. # 50). Next, Petitioner filed Objections
to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation within the time limits prescribed by 28
U.S.C. § 636. (Doc. # 51). Petitioner then filed a Motion to Expedite Judgment (Doc.
# 54), which the Magistrate Judge denied via Text Order (Text Order dated Jan. 27,
2014). Finally, Petitioner filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Text Order. (Doc.
# 56).

The Court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation to which objection is made and has made a de novo determination
in accord with the Magistrate Judge's report.

The Court has further reviewed

Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Amend and determines that the information contained
within does not alter its ruling. The Court therefore adopts the Magistrate Judge's
Recommendation and denies the Motion for Leave to Amend.
Finally, Petitioner’s Motion to Expedite Judgment and his Objections to the Text
Order denying that Motion are now moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Rehearing and Petition
for Rehearing En Banc (Doc. # 47) is treated as a motion to alter or to amend a
judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Amend to
Supplement Petition for Rehearing and/or Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Doc. # 50)
is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Expedite Judgment (Doc.
# 54) is denied as moot.
This the 11th day of March, 2014.

/s/ N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge

-2-