WHITE-BEY v. HOLCOMB

S.D. Indiana

WHITE-BEY v. HOLCOMB

DecidedJanuary 21, 2021

Docket2:20-cv-00147

StatusUnknown

This text of WHITE-BEY v. HOLCOMB (WHITE-BEY v. HOLCOMB) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

WHITE-BEY v. HOLCOMB, (S.D. Ind. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION DONYALLE. WHITE-BEY, ) Plaintiff, Vv. No. 2:20-cv-00147-JPH-DLP ERIC J. HOLCOMB, etal. Defendants. Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration Plaintiff Donyall White-Bey seeks reconsideration of the Court's Entry dismissing his amended complaint and directing final judgment. "Motions to reconsider serve a limited function, to be used 'where the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension."" Davis v. Carmel Clay Schs.,286 F.R.D. 411, 412 (S.D. Ind. 2012) (quoting Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)) (additional quotations omitted). A court may grant a motion to reconsider where a movant demonstrates a manifest error of law or fact; however, a motion to reconsider is not an occasion to make new arguments. Jn re Prince, 85 F.3d 314, 324 (7th Cir. 1996); Granite St. Ins. Co. v. Degerlia, 925 F.2d 189, 192 n.7 (7th Cir. 1991). While Mr. White-Bey disagrees with the Court's ruling in that Entry, he does not show that the Court committed any manifest error in its ruling. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration, dkt. [30], is denied. SO ORDERED. Date: 1/21/2021 wed Paka 4 James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:

All ECF-registered counsel of record via email

DONYALL E. WHITE-BEY 980181 PUTNAMVILLE - CF PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Electronic Service Participant – Court Only

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION DONYALLE. WHITE-BEY, ) Plaintiff, Vv. No. 2:20-cv-00147-JPH-DLP ERIC J. HOLCOMB, etal. Defendants. Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration Plaintiff Donyall White-Bey seeks reconsideration of the Court's Entry dismissing his amended complaint and directing final judgment. "Motions to reconsider serve a limited function, to be used 'where the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension."" Davis v. Carmel Clay Schs.,286 F.R.D. 411, 412 (S.D. Ind. 2012) (quoting Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)) (additional quotations omitted). A court may grant a motion to reconsider where a movant demonstrates a manifest error of law or fact; however, a motion to reconsider is not an occasion to make new arguments. Jn re Prince, 85 F.3d 314, 324 (7th Cir. 1996); Granite St. Ins. Co. v. Degerlia, 925 F.2d 189, 192 n.7 (7th Cir. 1991). While Mr. White-Bey disagrees with the Court's ruling in that Entry, he does not show that the Court committed any manifest error in its ruling. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration, dkt. [30], is denied. SO ORDERED. Date: 1/21/2021 wed Paka 4 James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:

All ECF-registered counsel of record via email

DONYALL E. WHITE-BEY 980181 PUTNAMVILLE - CF PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Electronic Service Participant – Court Only

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

WHITE-BEY v. HOLCOMB, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-bey-v-holcomb-insd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack