HARRIS v. QUINTANA
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 29 Objections. The only ground Petitioner appears to argue is the third ground, i.d., the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent a manifest injustice. As Petitioner has not convinced the Court that a clear error o f law was committed or that a manifest injustice was effectuated in denying his Section 2241 petition, the Motion is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 9/25/2012. Copy of Memorandum Opinion mailed to Petitioner at FCI McDowell on 9/25/2012. (dgg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STEVEN HARRIS,
Petitioner,
vs.
FRANCISCO J. QUINTANA, Warden,
Respondent
)
)
) Civil Action No. 09-318
)
) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
)
)
)
) Re: ECF No. 29
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Despite the fact that all parties consented to have the Magistrate Judge exercise plenary
jurisdiction, ECF No.8 and No. 17, after the undersigned issued a Memorandum Order, ECF No.
27, denying Steven Harris's pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. ยง 2241, Petitioner filed "Objections" to the Memorandum Order. ECF No. 29.
Insofar as "objections" are not appropriate to a final order entered by a Magistrate Judge,
where the parties have consented to have the Magistrate Judge enter final judgment, we will
liberally construe the pro se Petitioner's objections to constitute a Motion To Alter or Amend the
Judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).1 Treated as such, the Motion will be denied.
As the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently explained:
A motion for reconsideration is a limited vehicle used "to correct manifest errors
of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe ex
reI. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citation
omitted). A judgment may be altered or amended if the party seeking
reconsideration shows one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in the law;
We deem Petitioner's filing ofthe Motion to be timely under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, given his
explanation that he sent the Motion on August 2,2012, to a Post Office Box that the Clerk's
Office ceased using. ECF No. 29-1 at I.
I
(2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error ofIaw
or prevent manifest injustice. Id.
Vora v. All Conspirators,
F. App'x _, _,2012 WL 3642273, at * 1 (3d Cir. 2012). The
only ground Petitioner appears to argue is the third ground,
the need to correct a clear error
of law or prevent a manifest injustice. As Petitioner has not convinced the Court that a clear
error of law was committed or that a manifest injustice was effectuated in denying his Section
2241 petition, the Motion is hereby DENIED.
BY THE COURT,
slMaureen P. Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Date: September 25, 2012
cc:
STEVEN HARRIS
41534-037
FCI MCDOWELL
101 FEDERAL DRIVE
BOX 1029
WELCH, WV 24801
All counsel of record viaCM-ECF
2
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?