Corker v. Department of Social Services

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 02/17/2014. Copies mailed.(tjoh, )

IN THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT

COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

STEVEN BRADLEY CORKER,

Plaintiff,
Civil

v.

Action No.

3:13CV106

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on October 4,
the

Court

failure

dismissed

to

November

6,

Steven

return

the

consent

2013,

the

Court

the Court construes
P.

Rule

Order,

as

59(e)

("Rule

the

Court's

challenges

Bradley

returns

to

Corker's

civil

collection

received

of

Motion,"

October

4,

ECF

2013

a completed consent

to

No.

for

form.

On

letter

a

a motion filed pursuant to
59(e)

action

fees

from Corker

2013,

that

Fed.

R. Civ.

10).

Corker

Memorandum Opinion

collection of

fees

and

form,

and asks the Court to reopen the case.

The

United States

has

recognized

"(1)

to

(2)

to

three

accommodate
account

for

Court

of Appeals

grounds

an
new

for

intervening
evidence

not

for the

relief
change

Fourth Circuit

under
in

available

Rule

59(e):

controlling
at

trial;

law;

or

(3)

to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest

injustice."

Hutchinson

Cir.

1993)

Supp.

1406,

(citing

v.

Staton,

Weyerhaeuser

994

Corp.

F.2d

v.

1076,

Koppers

1081

Co.,

(4th

771

F.

1419

(D.

Md.

1991);

Atkins

v.

Marathon LeTourneau Co.,

F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D. Miss. 1990)).

130

Corker states that he asked

for the inmate account statement twice to prove his inability to

pay for the action but the institution never sent the statement.
(Mot. 1.)

The institution's failure to mail Corker's inmate

account statement has no bearing on Corker's failure to return

his consent to collection of fees form.

Additionally, the Court

notes that to the extent Corker alleges that the institution in
some manner interfered with his legal mail, the Court received,
without incident,

Corker's in forma pauperis affidavit and two

subsequent letters from Corker.

Corker

fails

to demonstrate

clear error of law or that

manifest injustice.

that

the Court

committed

a

reopening the case would prevent

Nor does Corker demonstrate any other basis

for granting Rule 59(e) relief.
59(e) Motion will be denied.

Accordingly, Corker's Rule

If Corker wishes to refile this

complaint, he may simply bring a new action.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum
Opinion to Corker.

Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge

Date:

f*

Richmond ,

Virginia