Thacker v. F.B.I.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER pursuant to receipt of plaintiff's 13 additional materials, the court treats the additional materials as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e); directing that the Rule 59(e) motion is denied. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 5/21/2012. (cc: pro se plaintiff; attys; United States Magistrate Judge) (taq)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
ROBERT J. THACKER,
Civil Action No. 2:12-0006
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On April 24, 2012, the court entered its Judgment in
this action, concluding that plaintiff’s claims were barred by
the applicable statute of limitations and the successive petition
limitation found in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
On April 26, 2012, plaintiff filed additional materials
in support of his request for relief.
The court treats the
additional materials as a motion to alter or amend judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (“Rule 59(e)
Plaintiff refers to Rule 60(b) in the body of his
additional materials. The materials are nevertheless construed
as a Rule 59(e) motion based upon the time within which they were
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for
a postjudgment “motion for reconsideration.” Rather,
they provide for a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend
Our court of appeals recently observed as follows
respecting a Rule 59(e) motion:
A Rule 59(e) motion may only be granted in three
situations: “(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.” Zinkand v. Brown,
478 F.3d 634, 637 (4th Cir.2007) (citations omitted).
It is an extraordinary remedy that should be applied
sparingly. EEOC v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 116 F.3d 110,
112 (4th Cir.1997).
Mayfield v. National Ass'n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc.,
F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir. 2012).
Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion
contains no assertion that might be construed to overcome the
limitations bar or the requirement that he first seek the court
of appeals’ permission to file a successive section 2255 motion.
His request is thus not meritorious.
The court, accordingly, ORDERS that the Rule 59(e)
motion be, and it hereby is, denied.
the judgment or a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from
judgment. Because, consistent with Rule 59(e),
Plaintiffs filed their motion within ten days of the
district court's judgment, we construe it as arising
under Rule 59(e).
Katyle v. Penn Nat. Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 471 n.4 (4th Cir.
2011) (citing Shepherd v. Int'l Paper Co., 372 F.3d 326, 328 n. 1
The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this written
opinion and order to the pro se plaintiff, all counsel of record,
and the United States Magistrate Judge.
May 21, 2012
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
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?