Combs v. Pedersen

Filing 52

ORDER denying as untimely 50 Motion for Reconsideration, construed as a Rule 59(e) motion. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 5/1/09. (elc),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------C AR S O N DARNELL COMBS, ORDER Plaintiff, 0 8 -c v -4 8 2 -s lc v. D EN N IS PEDERSON, D efendan t. --------------------------------------------In this lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff Carson Combs contended that defendant Dennis Pederson violated his Eighth Amendment rights by incarcerating him b eyo n d the date authorized by state law. On April 10, 2009, I granted defendant's motion fo r summary judgment, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, entered judgment in defendant's favor and closed the case. Now before the court is plaintiff's motion for recon sideration. Dkt. # 50. Because plaintiff is challenging this court's legal conclusions, I am construing his motion as a motion to alter or amend the judgment brought under Fed. R . Civ. P. 59(e). Bordelon v. Chicago School Reform Bd. of Trustees, 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2000)(purpose of Rule 59 motion is to point out manifest error of law). M otions under Rule 59 must be filed within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R . Civ. P. 59(e). In calculating the 10-day period, weekend and holidays are not counted.

1

A litigant's failure to meet the time limits of Rule 59 forecloses him from raising in the d istrict court his assertions that errors of law have been made. United States v. Griffin, 782 F .2 d l393 (7th Cir. l986). The court cannot extend the time for filing a Rule 59 motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2). Because plaintiff's motion was filed on April 28, 2009, more than 10 days after entry of judgment, it was not timely. Therefore, I must deny it. Even had plaintiff's motion been timely, it would have been denied, because plaintiff d oes nothing more in his motion but re-argue the merits of the case. I considered and rejected these arguments in the April 10 opinion and order. He does not raise any new argum ents showing that I erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment.

OR DER IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, dkt. # 50, is construed as a Rule 59(e) motion and DENIED as untimely. E n tered this 1s t day of May, 2009. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

2