Tippens v. Center for Therapeutic Justice et al, No. 3:2011cv00071 - Document 36 (E.D. Va. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 4/24/12. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division ROBERT EARL TIPPENS, JR. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:11CV71-HEH CENTER FOR THERAPEUTIC JUSTICE, et al9 Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION (Denying Plaintiffs Rule 59(e) Motions) Plaintiff, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, brings this civil rights action. By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on March 8, 2012, the Court dismissed the present action. On March 12, 2012, the Court received from Plaintiff two documents titled, "MOTION TO DISMISS AND COMPLAINT" and "MOTION TO DISMISS," respectively. Because the Court received the foregoing motions within twenty-eight days of the entry of the March 8,2012 Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court will consider them as motions for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has recognized three grounds for relief under Rule 59(e): "(1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993) (citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers Co., Ill F. Supp. 1406, 1419 (D. Md. 1991); Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D. Miss. 1990)). In his Rule 59(e) Motion, Plaintiff simply reiterates many of the arguments the Court rejected in its March 8, 2012 Memorandum Opinion. Plaintiff does not demonstrate any grounds for granting relief under Rule 59(e). Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'I Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (noting that a "'Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry ofjudgment.'" (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure ยง 2810.1, at 127-28 (2d ed. 1995))). Accordingly, Plaintiffs Rule 59(e) Motions (Dk. Nos. 33, 34) will be denied. An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. ^ Apnl ZH. Date: Hpnl 2^20/*Richmond, Virginia /s/ HENRY E.HUDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
