Tillman v. Allen, No. 3:2013cv00748 - Document 28 (E.D. Va. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge James R. Spencer on 4/28/2015. Copy mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff. (jsmi, )

Download PDF
Tillman v. Allen Doc. 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division MICHAEL A. TILLMAN, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 3:13CV748 CHARLES H. ALLEN, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Michael A. Tillman, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil action. By Memorandum Orderentered February 20, 2015, the Court directed Tillman to submit a particularized complaint within fourteen (14) days of thedate of entry thereof. The Court warned Tillman that the failure to submit the particularized complaint would result in the dismissal of the action. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the February 20, 2015 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, by Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on March 24, 2015, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice. On April 3, 2015, the Court received from Tillman a letterthat the Court construes as a motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 59(e) ("Rule 59(e) Motion," ECF No. 27), see MLC Auto., LLC V. Town ofSouthern Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277-78 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing Dove v, CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978)). The United States Courtof Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has recognized three grounds for relief underRule 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 Dockets.Justia.com Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers Co., Ill F. Supp. 1406,1419 (D. Md. \99\)\ Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D. Miss. 1990)). Tillman states that he never received the February 20, 2015 Memorandum Order directing him to file a particularized complaint. (Rule 59(e) Mot. 1.) While Tillman provides no argument in support of his motion, nevertheless, in orderto prevent manifest injustice, Tillman's Rule 59(e) Motion (ECF No. 27) will be GRANTED. The March 24, 2015 Memorandum Opinion and Order will be VACATED. The Clerk will be DIRECTED to mail a copy of the February 20, 2015 to Tillman. The Court will DIRECT Tillman to submit a particularized complaintthat complies with the directives in the February 20, 2015 Memorandum Order within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry thereof FAILURETO COMPLY WITH THE FOREGOING DIRECTIVES WILL RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Date: Richmond, Virginia /g/ James R. Spencer Senior U. S. 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.