Meadows v. Keller Transportation Inc., No. 8:2016cv02897 - Document 82 (D. Md. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's unsigned document titled "Affidavit" and construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment; and directing the Clerk to return the document to Plaintiff with a copy of this Order. Sig ned by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 12/21/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Motion for Oral Argument, # 3 Process and Receipt Documents, # 4 Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit 2, # 6 Exhibit 3, # 7 Exhibit 4) (tds, Deputy Clerk) (Additional a ttachment(s) added on 12/21/2017: # 8 2011 Tax Documents, # 9 2012 Tax Documents, # 10 2013 Tax Documents, # 11 2014 Tax Documents, # 12 2015 Tax Documents, # 13 2016 Tax Documents) (c/m 12/21/2017 tds, Deputy Clerk). Modified on 12/21/2017 (tds, Deputy Clerk).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Meadows v. Keller Transportation Inc. Doc. 82 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : DEBRA F. MEADOWS : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 16-2897 : CHARLES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al. : MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing Plaintiff’s retaliation claim, granting judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff’s claims relating to Title VII and violation(s) of the ADA, and closing the case on December 5, 2017. (ECF Nos. 80 and 81). On December 15, Plaintiff hand delivered to the clerk an unsigned document titled “Affidavit” and containing hundreds of pages of exhibits.1 because, pursuant Plaintiff’s document will be returned to her to Local Rule, when a party is appearing without counsel, the Clerk will accept for filing only documents signed by that party. Although the document is unsigned and will be returned to Plaintiff, consideration of the contents would not result in any relief for Plaintiff. If construed as a motion to alter or 1 The Clerk is directed to docket Plaintiff’s 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 tax returns attached as exhibits to Plaintiff’s document as private and not available for public viewing. Dockets.Justia.com amend judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, the motion would be denied. See MLC Auto, LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008); Lemon v. Hong, No. ELH-16-979, 2016 WL 3087451, *2 (D.Md. June 2, 2016). In this circuit, “there are three grounds for amending an earlier judgment: (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.” Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998). The Rule 59 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 of judgment.” 11 Charles Allen Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2810.1 (3d ed. 2009). Plaintiff’s document does not satisfy the standard of Rule 59(e). issues. Plaintiff already had an opportunity to litigate these If Plaintiff wants review of that decision, she may appeal. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s unsigned document titled “Affidavit” and construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment, is DENIED and the Clerk is DIRECTED to return it to her with a copy of this Order. December 21, 2017 /s/ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 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.
