Havens v. Tallahatchie County Sheriff's Department

N.D. Mississippi

Havens v. Tallahatchie County Sheriff's Department

DecidedMarch 23, 2021

Docket3:19-cv-00225

StatusUnknown

This text of Havens v. Tallahatchie County Sheriff's Department (Havens v. Tallahatchie County Sheriff's Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Havens v. Tallahatchie County Sheriff's Department, (N.D. Miss. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION

ROGER HAVENS PLAINTIFF

v. No. 3:19CV225-RP

TALLAHATCHIE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT. SHERIFF WILLIAM L. BREWER DEPUTY SHERIFF TIMOTHY COLE DEPUTY SHERIFF BENJI MCKINNEY MELINDA MORGAN (SHERIFF’S FRIEND) STEVE SIMMONS PETE GRIFFEN DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION [21] TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the court on the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s judgment [14] dismissing various claims and defendants from this case. The court interprets the motion, using the liberal standard for pro se litigants set forth in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), as a motion to amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), which must be filed within 28 days of entry of judgment. An order granting relief under Rule 59(e) is appropriate when: (1) there has been an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) where the movant presents newly discovered evidence that was previously unavailable, or (3) to correct a manifest error of law or fact. Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003). The plaintiff has neither asserted nor proven any of the justifications to amend a judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). As such, the plaintiff’s request to alter or amend judgment is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this, the 23rd day of March, 2021.

/s/ Roy Percy UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION

ROGER HAVENS PLAINTIFF

v. No. 3:19CV225-RP

TALLAHATCHIE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT. SHERIFF WILLIAM L. BREWER DEPUTY SHERIFF TIMOTHY COLE DEPUTY SHERIFF BENJI MCKINNEY MELINDA MORGAN (SHERIFF’S FRIEND) STEVE SIMMONS PETE GRIFFEN DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION [21] TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the court on the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s judgment [14] dismissing various claims and defendants from this case. The court interprets the motion, using the liberal standard for pro se litigants set forth in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), as a motion to amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), which must be filed within 28 days of entry of judgment. An order granting relief under Rule 59(e) is appropriate when: (1) there has been an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) where the movant presents newly discovered evidence that was previously unavailable, or (3) to correct a manifest error of law or fact. Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003). The plaintiff has neither asserted nor proven any of the justifications to amend a judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). As such, the plaintiff’s request to alter or amend judgment is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this, the 23rd day of March, 2021.

/s/ Roy Percy UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Havens v. Tallahatchie County Sheriff's Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/havens-v-tallahatchie-county-sheriffs-department-msnd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack