Tippens v. Center for Therapeutic Justice et al

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 4/24/12. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

ROBERT EARL TIPPENS, JR.

Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 3:11CV71-HEH
CENTER FOR THERAPEUTIC

JUSTICE, et al9
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

(Denying Plaintiffs Rule 59(e) Motions)

Plaintiff, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, brings
this civil rights action. By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on March 8, 2012,

the Court dismissed the present action. On March 12, 2012, the Court received from
Plaintiff two documents titled, "MOTION TO DISMISS AND COMPLAINT" and

"MOTION TO DISMISS," respectively. Because the Court received the foregoing
motions within twenty-eight days of the entry of the March 8,2012 Memorandum
Opinion and Order, the Court will consider them as motions for relief under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has recognized three

grounds for relief under Rule 59(e): "(1) to accommodate an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a

clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076,
1081 (4th Cir. 1993) (citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers Co., Ill F. Supp. 1406,

1419 (D. Md. 1991); Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D.
Miss. 1990)). In his Rule 59(e) Motion, Plaintiff simply reiterates many of the arguments

the Court rejected in its March 8, 2012 Memorandum Opinion. Plaintiff does not
demonstrate any grounds for granting relief under Rule 59(e). Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'I
Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (noting that a "'Rule 59(e) motion may
not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could

have been raised prior to the entry ofjudgment.'" (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright &
Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, at 127-28 (2d ed. 1995))).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs Rule 59(e) Motions (Dk. Nos. 33, 34) will be denied.
An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

^
Apnl ZH.
Date: Hpnl 2^20/*Richmond, Virginia

/s/

HENRY E.HUDSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE