Oden v. Wilson et al, No. 3:2017cv00489 - Document 88 (E.D. Va. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 5/11/2020. (sbea,)

Download PDF
Oden v. Wilson et al Doc. 88 Case 3:17-cv-00489-JAG-RCY Document 88 Filed 05/11/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 623 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division CHRISTOPHER W. ODEN, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:17CV489 ERIC WILSON, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Christopher W. Oden, a federal inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this Bivens1/Federal Tort Claims Action. By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on November 25, 2019, the Court dismissed without prejudice all of Oden’s claims against Defendant Hadded because Oden failed to serve him in a timely matter. By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on November 27, 2019, the Court dismissed the remainder of Oden’s claims and dismissed the action. On December 12, 2019, Oden moved for reconsideration of the above decisions and the Court’s refusal to appoint counsel to assist him. “[R]econsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). 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, 1 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:17-cv-00489-JAG-RCY Document 88 Filed 05/11/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 624 1081 (4th Cir. 1993) (citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers Co., 771 F. Supp. 1406, 1419 (D. Md. 1991); Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D. Miss. 1990)). Oden apparently relies upon the third ground. Oden, however, fails to demonstrate the Court committed a clear error of law or that relief under Rule 59(e) is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice. Rather, Oden largely seeks to relitigate old matters already rejected by the Court. Accordingly, Oden’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 85) will be DENIED. An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Date: 11 May 2020 Richmond, Virginia 2

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.