Prasad v. Federal Trade Commission et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 09/10/2018. Copy mailed to Plaintiff. (walk, )

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

SEP I 02QIB

Richmond Division

clerk, UjS. oistrictcoDin'

SUNDARIK.PRASAD,

wchmond.va^

Plaintiff,
V.

Civil Action No. 3:17CV224

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,et al..
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Sundari K.Prasad, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action.
By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on May 16, 2018,the Court dismissed the

action as legally fiivolous and for failure to state claim. {See ECF Nos. 11, 12.) The matter
is now before the Court on Prasad's "Petition for Rehearing" that will be construed as a

motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)("Rule 59(e) Motion," ECF No. 14).'

See MLC Auto., LLC v. Town ofS. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277-78(4th Cir. 2008)(stating that
filings made within twenty-eight days after the entry ofjudgment are construed as Rule 59(e)
motions(citing Dove v. CODESCO,569 F.2d 807, 809(4th Cir. 1978))).

"[Rjeconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which

should be used sparingly." Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'I Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396,403 (4th
Cir. 1998)(citation omitted)(internal quotation marks omitted). The United States Court of

Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recognizes three grounds for relief under Rule 59(e): "(1)to
accommodate an intervening change in controlling law;(2)to account for new evidence not

'The Court employs the pagination assigned to Prasad's Rule 59(e) Motion by the
CM/ECF docketing system.

claims against the Federal Trade Commission will be DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
(ECF No. 11, at 7.) Prasad fails to demonstrate any clear errors of law in the conclusions of
the Court or that the dismissal of this action resulted in manifest injustice. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) Motion (ECF No. 14) will be DENIED.
On May 23, 2018, the Court received an Amended Complaint from Prasad in this
closed action. (ECF No. 13.) The Court dismissed the instant action because none of the
named Defendants were amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens, and her claims
were legally frivolous. Prasad's Amended Complaint fails to alter that conclusion. No
further action will be taken on Prasad's Amended Complaint in this closed action.
An appropriate Order shall issue.

Date: September 10, 2018
Richmond, Virginia

4