Blakey v. Herring et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 10/26/2017. Copy to Pro Se Plaintiff. (jsmi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
WILLIAM THORNTON BLAKEY,

Plaintiff,

V.

Civil Action No.

MARK HERRING, ^

3:17CV468

al.,

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

By
2017,

Memorandum

Opinion

and

Order

entered

on

October

10,

the Court dismissed this action without prejudice because

William Thornton Blakey failed to affirm his

intention to pay

the full filing fee by signing and returning a consent to the
collection

of

fees

On

received

a

action.

(ECF No. 10, at 1.)

purse

the

lacked his

letter

form.

action

motion

because

October

"requesting

23,

2017,

reinstatement

the

Court

of"

this

Blakey contends that he could not

he

was

transferred

legal materials after he was

and

because

transferred.

he

(id.)

Because the letter motion was filed within twenty-eight days of

the entry of

judgment,

the Court construes the motion as one

filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
59(e)

("Rule

Motion.")

"[R]econsideration

of

a

judgment

after

its

entry

is

an

extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly."

Pac. Ins.

Co.

(4th

V.

Am.

Nat^l

Fire

Ins.

Co.,

148

F.3d

396,

403

Cir.

1998)

The

(citation

United

omitted)

States

(internal

Court

of

quotation

Appeals

for

marks

the

omitted).

Fourth

Circuit

recognizes three grounds for relief under Rule 59(e):
accommodate
account

an

for

correct a

intervening

new

evidence

clear error of

Hutchinson

v,

Staton,

change
not

(D.

F.R.D.

Md.

625,

1991);

626

at

994

F.2d

v.

1076,

1081

v.

Marathon

to

or

(3)

to

injustice."

(4th

Cir.

1993)

771 F.

Koppers Co.,

Atkins

(2)

trial;

law or prevent manifest

(citing Weyerhaeuser Corp.
1419

available

to

law;

in controlling

"(1)

Supp.

1406,

LeTourneau

Co. ,

130

(S.D. Miss. 1990)).

Blakey fails to demonstrate any persuasive reason why the
Court

should

dismissed
return a

2017,

reinstate

the

action

consent

this

action

because

to the

on

the

Blakey

collection of

docket.

failed
fees

to

form.

The

Court

complete
On August

and
2,

the Court mailed a consent to the collection of fees form

and an m

forma pauperis affidavit form to Blakey and instructed

him that he must complete and return both forms within thirty

days.

Blakey

apparently

received

completed and returned the ^

forms

forma pauperis form.

did not complete and return the
fees form.

these

because

he

However, he

consent to the collection of

Blakey fails to demonstrate that the Court committed

a clear error of law or that reopening his case is necessary to
prevent

manifest

other basis

injustice.

for granting Rule

Nor

does

59(e)

Blakey

relief.

demonstrate

any

See Williams v.

Virginia,

524

F.

App'x

40,

41

{4th

Cir.

2013)

("The

reconsideration of a judgment after entry is an extraordinary
remedy which should be used sparingly," {citing Pac. Ins. Co. v.
Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403
Accordingly,

Blakey's Rule 59 {e)

Motion

{4th Cir. 1998))).

(ECF No.

10)

will be

denied.

Nevertheless,
pursue his claims.

send Blakey a

complaint.

it appears that Blakey wishes to continue to
Accordingly,

standard form

for

the Clerk will be directed to

filing

a

42

U.S.C.

§ 1983

If Blakey wishes to pursue his claims, he may submit

a new complaint that will be filed as a new civil action.

Court will process any new complaint upon
Blakey.

its

receipt

The

from

No further action will be taken in this closed case.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum
Opinion to Blakey.
I t is so ORDERED,

/s/

Robert E. Payne

Senior United States District Judge
Date:

Richmond, Virginia