Richards v. Brown et al, No. 3:2011cv00426 - Document 29 (E.D. Va. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 6/25/13. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Richards v. Brown et al Doc. 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division MARK E. RICHARDS, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. WENDY K. BROWN, 3:11CV426 et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION By Order entered on September 18, 2012, the Court accepted and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and dismissed Mark v. Brown, 2012). Richards's 3:11CV426, The Motion E. 2012 WL 4321446, matter now Leave for to Recommendation. (ECF comes No. 2012 amend the 59(e) States Order, 26.) ("Rule 59(e) v. Court construes Motion"). Roberts, (4th Cir. 9, No. 2012) of to the it Federal Fed. frivolous. the Court entry to Rule 2012 of Richards's submitted of and this the September to alter Civil P. 59(e); WL 18, Report a motion R. Civ. 3:09cr78-HEH, on Richards as Richards (E.D. Va. Sept. Amendment Because days judgment pursuant (E.D. Va. Oct. 809 the and as at *1 before Amend motion within twenty-eight 18, complaint Procedure see United 4801795, (citing Dove v. CODESCO, or at *1 569 F.2d 807, 1978)). Dockets.Justia.com The Fourth Circuit under Rule 59(e): "(1) controlling law; at trial; or (2) (3) to F. Supp. Co., 1993) 1406, 130 F.R.D. Motion, three grounds account correct for a new evidence not clear Hutchinson v. error Staton, (D. Md. 625, Richards 626 of law 994 (citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. 1419 for relief to 'accommodate an intervening change in to manifest injustice." (4th Cir. recognizes available or prevent F.2d 1076, v. Koppers 1081 Co., 771 1991); Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau (S.D. claims Miss. the erroneous 1990)). Magistrate Recommendation "is plain error." Motion, if Judge's adopted, Report would and (Rule 59(e) Mot. 3. )1 In his Rule 59(e) and, In his Rule 59(e) constitute Richards requests that the Court alter or amend its order of dismissal in order to provide him an opportunity to file amended objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report argument and Recommendation. lacks clarity, a (Id. generous at 1.) While reading of Motion suggests that Richards argues that he his Complaint and Objections Department of Corrections's alleging ("VDOC") such a claim is not Rule 59(e) raised a claim in that the Virginia miscalculation of his total sentence delayed his parole eligibility date. that his Richards's Richards barred by Heck v. Humphrey, argues 512 U.S. 1 The Court corrects the capitalization in quotations from Richards's submissions. 2 477 (1994) and may be brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2 Wilkinson v. that Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005) . Richards See argues he alleged in his incorrect Complaint calculation delayed his f 39. The incorrect sentence Defendant's his revocation parole eligibility date. factual determination in Recommendation that the that of [Richard's] calculation of would result in See Complaint the Report and claim that his his [sic] sentence relief probation immediate from revocation release or characterization of his challenging the speedier release is erroneous. (Rule 59(e) Mot. Despite claims, Richards's Richards calculation Instead, of 3.) his of total sentences, a failed his in his post-judgment to parole Complaint, sentence clear in attack bring a eligibility Richards light on date in his challenged the of the claim new Complaint. calculation probation execution of his revocation sentence. Richards merely mentioned his parole eligibility date in passing among other factual allegations in his Complaint. (Compl. 2 That statute provides, in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute . . . of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law .... 42 U.S.C. § 1983. SI 39.) Richards allegation. did not at 14-15.) (Id. seek any relief Rather, upon that Richards's factual demands for monetary and injunctive relief were predicated upon Defendants' alleged failure revocation "to sentence credit 587 days towards served Plaintiff's in a state probation correctional facility between April 2, 2009 and November 12, 2010." (Id. at 15.) Richards fails to demonstrate a clear other basis for granting relief under Rule the Rule 59(e) The Clerk Motion (ECF No. is directed error of law or any 59(e). Accordingly, 26) will be dismissed. to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to Richards. And it is so ORDERED. /s/ Date: fy^C IS?/ fej ? Richmond, Virginia MS Robert E. Payne Senior 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.
