Richards v. Brown et al
Filing
29
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 6/25/13. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
MARK E.
RICHARDS,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.
v.
WENDY K. BROWN,
3:11CV426
et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
By Order entered on September 18, 2012,
the Court accepted
and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and
dismissed Mark
v. Brown,
2012).
Richards's
3:11CV426,
The
Motion
E.
2012 WL 4321446,
matter
now
Leave
for
to
Recommendation.
(ECF
comes
No.
2012
amend the
59(e)
States
Order,
26.)
("Rule 59(e)
v.
Court
construes
Motion").
Roberts,
(4th Cir.
9,
No.
2012)
1978)).
of
to
the
it
Federal
Fed.
frivolous.
the
Court
entry
to
Rule
2012
of
Richards's
submitted
of
and
this
the
September
to alter
Civil
P. 59(e);
WL
18,
Report
a motion
R. Civ.
3:09cr78-HEH,
on
Richards
as
Richards
(E.D. Va. Sept.
Amendment
Because
days
judgment pursuant
(E.D. Va. Oct.
809
the
and
as
at *1
before
Amend
motion within twenty-eight
18,
complaint
Procedure
see United
4801795,
(citing Dove v. CODESCO,
or
at
*1
569 F.2d 807,
The
Fourth
Circuit
under Rule 59(e):
"(1)
controlling law;
at
trial;
or
(2)
(3)
to
F. Supp.
Co.,
1993)
1406,
130 F.R.D.
Motion,
three
grounds
account
correct
for
a
new evidence not
clear
Hutchinson v.
error
Staton,
(D. Md.
625,
Richards
626
of
law
994
(citing Weyerhaeuser Corp.
1419
for
relief
to 'accommodate an intervening change in
to
manifest injustice."
(4th Cir.
recognizes
available
or
prevent
F.2d 1076,
v.
Koppers
1081
Co.,
771
1991); Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau
(S.D.
claims
Miss.
the
erroneous
1990)).
Magistrate
Recommendation
"is
plain error."
Motion,
if
Judge's
adopted,
Report
would
and
(Rule 59(e) Mot. 3. )1
In his Rule 59(e)
and,
In his Rule 59(e)
constitute
Richards requests that the Court
alter or amend its order of dismissal in order to provide him an
opportunity to file amended objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Report
argument
and
Recommendation.
lacks
clarity,
a
(Id.
generous
at
1.)
While
reading
of
Motion suggests that Richards argues that he
his
Complaint
and
Objections
Department of Corrections's
alleging
("VDOC")
such a claim is not
Rule
59(e)
raised a claim in
that
the
Virginia
miscalculation of his total
sentence delayed his parole eligibility date.
that
his
Richards's
Richards
barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
argues
512
U.S.
1 The Court corrects the capitalization in quotations from
Richards's
submissions.
2
477 (1994) and may be brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2
Wilkinson v.
that
Dotson,
544
U.S.
74,
82
(2005) .
Richards
See
argues
he
alleged
in
his
incorrect
Complaint
calculation
delayed his
f 39.
The
incorrect
sentence
Defendant's
his
revocation
parole eligibility date.
factual determination in
Recommendation that
the
that
of
[Richard's]
calculation of
would
result
in
See Complaint
the Report and
claim that
his
his
[sic]
sentence
relief
probation
immediate
from
revocation
release
or
characterization
of
his
challenging
the
speedier release is erroneous.
(Rule 59(e)
Mot.
Despite
claims,
Richards's
Richards
calculation
Instead,
of
3.)
his
of
total
sentences,
a
failed
his
in his
post-judgment
to
parole
Complaint,
sentence
clear
in
attack
bring
a
eligibility
Richards
light
on
date
in
his
challenged the
of
the
claim
new
Complaint.
calculation
probation
execution
of
his
revocation
sentence.
Richards merely mentioned his parole eligibility date in passing
among
other
factual
allegations
in
his
Complaint.
(Compl.
2 That statute provides, in pertinent part:
Every person who,
under color of any statute
. . . of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other
person
within
the
jurisdiction
thereof
to
the
deprivation
of
any
rights,
privileges,
or
immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law ....
42
U.S.C.
§
1983.
SI 39.)
Richards
allegation.
did
not
at
14-15.)
(Id.
seek
any
relief
Rather,
upon
that
Richards's
factual
demands
for
monetary and injunctive relief were predicated upon Defendants'
alleged
failure
revocation
"to
sentence
credit
587
days
towards
served
Plaintiff's
in
a
state
probation
correctional
facility between April 2, 2009 and November 12, 2010."
(Id.
at
15.)
Richards
fails
to
demonstrate a
clear
other basis for granting relief under Rule
the Rule 59(e)
The
Clerk
Motion (ECF No.
is
directed
error of law or any
59(e).
Accordingly,
26) will be dismissed.
to
send
a
copy
of
this
Memorandum
Opinion to Richards.
And it
is
so ORDERED.
/s/
Date:
fy^C IS?/ fej ?
Richmond, Virginia
MS
Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
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?