Lewis v. Greason

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: January 9, 2024
• Docket: 2:21-cv-11939
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

TOM LEWIS,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:21-cv-11939 v. Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman ALAN GREASON, REGINA JENKINS- GRANT, CHRISTINA RAMSEY, JEFFREY LUZIUS, MELODY WALLACE, RICHARD RUSSELL, FNU CAMPBELL, UNKNOWN MAILROOM PERSONNEL, and UNKNOWN TRANSFER COORDINATOR,

Defendants. ____________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RULE 59(e) MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND MARCH 20, 2023 JUDGMENT [154]

Before the Court is Plaintiff Tom Lewis’s “Motion to File a Motion to Alter and Amend the Judgments Already Entered by the Court.” (ECF No. 154.) Plaintiff states that he wishes to file a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend this Court’s March 20, 2023 Order in which it accepted and adopted the Magistrate Judge’s February 15, 2023 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s request is denied as time-barred. Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The Court does not have discretion to extend the time for filing a Rule 59(e) motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2). Indeed, “the limits on the availability of Rule 59(e) relief are substantial.” Howard v. United States, 533 F.3d 472, 475 (6th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff signed the present motion for leave to file and it was post marked on July 10, 2023—112 days after this Court entered its March 20, 2023 Order; therefore, it is untimely. The motion is DENIED on this basis. SO ORDERED. s/ Nancy G. Edmunds Nancy G. Edmunds United States District Judge

Dated: January 9, 2024

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on January 9, 2024, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/ Lisa Bartlett Case Manager