Sharlene v. USPS

Filing 25

ORDER: The court determines that the 24 findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiff's 21 Motion. (Ordered by Judge Sam A. Lindsay on 11/25/2024) (twd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
SHARLENE JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
USPS,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-330-L-BT

ORDER
On October 28, 2024, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 24) was entered, recommending that the court deny
pro se Plaintiff Sharlene Jackson’s (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Jackson”) post-judgment filing
(“Motion”) (Doc. 21). The magistrate judge determined that Ms. Jackson’s Motion be denied
because she has not shown that she is entitled to relief under Rule 59(e).
No objections have been filed, and the 14-day period to object after service of the Reports
has passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). For the reasons stated
herein, the court accepts the Report.
Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford determined that because fewer than 28 days passed
between the court’s June 5, 2024, dismissal of Plaintiff’s case and her June 28, 2024, filing for
reconsideration, her Motion should be treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment
pursuant to Rule 59(e). Report 2. The magistrate judge determined that Plaintiff was given
several opportunities to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that this court
clearly explained the consequences for failing to comply with the Rules and its orders. Report 4.

Order – Page 1

Further, Magistrate Judge Rutherford concluded that Ms. Jackson should not be given
further opportunity to comply with the orders entered in this case because she does not point to
any intervening change in the controlling law, present newly-discovered evidence that was
previously unavailable, or show that there was any manifest error of law or fact. Id. Moreover,
the magistrate judge determined that granting her motion would unnecessarily delay the
resolution of the litigation. Id. Finally, the magistrate judge concluded that Plaintiff’s Motion
falls short of satisfying any of the requirements justifying the extraordinary remedy of
reconsideration of the judgment under Rule 59(e). Id. (quotation marks omitted).
Having considered the file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the
findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the
court. Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 21).
It is so ordered this 25th day of November, 2024.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order – Page 2