Straw v. State of Indiana

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND CHAMBERS OF 101 WEST LOMBARD STREET STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE (410) 962-7780

March 9, 2020

LETTER TO COUNSEL and PARTICIPATING PLAINTIFF:

RE: Andrew Straw v. State of Indiana, Civil No. SAG-19-3034

Dear Interested Individuals,

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider. ECF 12. Rule 59(e) allows for alteration or amendment to a court’s ruling in three situations: (1) to accommodate an intervening change of law; (2) to account for new evidence, or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff’s Motion has not identified any intervening change of law or new evidence. Furthermore, the Motion does not explain how this Court’s Order, ECF 10, constitutes clear error, or causes manifest injustice.

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider, ECF 12, is DENIED. Since this case is now closed, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judicial Notice, ECF 14, is DENIED. Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an Opinion and docketed as an Order.

Sincerely yours,

/s/

Stephanie A. Gallagher United States District Judge