McCarter v. Nutter

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 09/19/2014. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff on 9/19/2014.(tjoh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

ERIC C. McCARTER,
Plaintiff,
V.

Civil Action No. 3:14CV356

T.L. NUTTER,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Eric C. McCarter, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil action.

By

Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on August 19, 2014, this Court dismissed the action

without prejudice because McCarter failed to return a consent to collection of fees form and did
not pay the statutory filing fee within the time required by the Memorandum Order entered on
May 28, 2014.

On August 26, 2014, the Court received from McCarter a letter that the Court construes

as a motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 59(e) ("Rule 59(e) Motion") (ECF No. 11).
McCarter challenges the Court's August 19, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order, returns a

completed consent to collection of fees form, and informs the Court that he "still want[s] to file
this civil suit." (Rule 59(e) Mot. 1.)

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., 771 F. Supp. 1406, 1419 (D. Md. 1991); Atkins v.