ROE v. LYNCH

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MAINE

RICHARD ROE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:20-cv-00050-LEW ) MARIANNE LYNCH, DISTRICT ) ATTORNEY FOR PROSECUTORIAL ) DISTRICT V, ) ) Defendant.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On May 18, 2020, Plaintiff Richard Roe filed a Motion for Reconsideration, asking me to re-evaluate my Order granting the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11), and to vacate the Judgment against him (ECF No. 12). “A party may seek to alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Rule 59(e) relief is granted sparingly, and only when the original judgment evidenced a manifest error of law, if there is newly discovered evidence, or in certain other narrow situations.” Biltcliffe v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 772 F.3d 925, 930 (1st Cir. 2014). Because Plaintiff has not identified an error of law, or pointed me to any new facts that would alter my earlier decision, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 13) is DENIED. SO ORDERED.

Dated this 22nd day of June, 2020.

/s/ Lance E. Walker UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE