TAYLOR v. OLIVER, No. 2:2013cv00328 - Document 8 (S.D. Ind. 2013)
Court Description: Entry Discussing Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment - This cause is before the court on the petitioner's motion to alter or amend judgment. Given the timing of the petitioner's motion to alter or amend judgment relative to the entry of final judgment on September 13, 2013. The post-judgment motion to alter or amend judgment is denied. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/4/2013. (RSF)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
TAYLOR v. OLIVER Doc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION RALPH TAYLOR, Petitioner, vs. JOHN C. OLIVER, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:13-cv-00328-JMS-MJD Entry Discussing Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment This cause is before the court on the petitioner’s motion to alter or amend judgment. Given the timing of the petitioner’s motion to alter or amend judgment relative to the entry of final judgment on September 13, 2013, and given the arguments set forth in such motion, the motion is treated as labeled and as a motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Borrero v. City of Chicago, 456 F.3d 698, 701-02 (7th Cir. 2006) (explaining that whether a motion filed within the time frame contemplated by Rule 59(e) should be analyzed under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure depends on the substance of the motion, not on the timing or label affixed to it). The purpose of a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) is to have the court reconsider matters “properly encompassed in a decision on the merits.” Osterneck v. Ernst and Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1988). Rule 59(e) “authorizes relief when a moving party ‘clearly establish[es] either a manifest error of law or fact’ or ‘present[s] newly discovered evidence.’” Souter v. International Union, 993 F.2d 595, 599 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986)). Dockets.Justia.com There was in this case no manifest error of law or fact. The court did not misapprehend the petitioner’s claims, nor did it misapply the law to those claims in light of the underlying record. Accordingly, the post-judgment motion to alter or amend judgment is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. 10/04/2013 Date: __________________ Distribution: _______________________________ Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana RALPH TAYLOR #31628-048 TERRE HAUTE - FCI TERRE HAUTE FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION Inmate Mail/Parcels P.O. BOX 33 TERRE HAUTE, IN 47808
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
