Supreme-El v. Director, Department of Corrections, No. 3:2014cv00052 - Document 35 (E.D. Va. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 4/15/15. Copy sent: Yes (tdai, )

Download PDF

Supreme-El v. Director, Department of Corrections Doc. 35 n IN THE UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT COURT e APR I6 2QI5 OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division METAPHYZIC l i CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND, VA EL-ECTROMAGNETIC SUPREME-EL, Petitioner, Civil Action No. v DIRECTOR, 3:14CV52 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on March 3, the Court objections, overruled Metaphyzic accepted and adopted the of the Magistrate Judge, of habeas same day, AMENDED El-Ectromagnetic corpus the MOTION FOR Supreme-El's and Recommendation and dismissed his petition for a writ pursuant Court Report 2015, to received SUMMARY 28 U.S.C. a "MOTION JUDGMENT." the action has been dismissed, § 2254. FOR <ECF this Motion Later LEAVE No. TO 2 9.) (ECF No. 29) on the FILE AN Because will be denied. On March 16, 2015, the Court received from Supreme-El a "MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 60(b) OF THE FED. R. CIV. P." (ECF No. 32.) Because Supreme-El filed his request for reconsideration within twenty-eight (28) days of the entry of the March 3, 2015 Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Dockets.Justia.com Court treats Procedure of the 59(e) motion ("Rule Southern Pines, Dove v. CODESCO, as one 59(e) under Federal Motion"). 532 F.3d 269, 569 F.2d 807, Rule MLC Auto., 277-78 (4th Cir. 809 (4th Cir. of Civil LLC v. 2008) Town (citing 1978)). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recognizes three grounds for relief under Rule accommodate an account for correct a intervening new evidence clear Hutchinson v. error 1419 (D. F.R.D. Md. 625, 626 law or 994 prevent F.2d v. Atkins (S.D. Miss. at 1076, Koppers v. 1990)). (2) to or (3) to trial; manifest 1081 Co., Marathon to law; controlling available Corp. 1991) ; in not of Staton, (citing Weyerhaeuser change "(1) 59(e): (4th 771 injustice." 1993) Supp. F. Cir. 1406, LeTourneau Co. , 130 Supreme-El claims that he "seeks further review for relief" because the "final judgment of this court is inadvertence; ECF No. 34.J1 or any result making (capitalization law the the of fraud, judgment corrected); see misrepresentation, void." Mem. Supp. (Rule Rule 59(e) 59(e) and Mot. Mot. 2 3, Supreme-El fails to demonstrate a clear error of other basis for granting relief under Rule 59(e). Accordingly, the Rule 59(e) Motion (ECF No. 32) will be denied. 1 To Opinion the was incorrect. extent entered Supreme-El (Mem. (See ECF No. 27.) Supp. suggests Rule that 5 9(e) no Mot. Memorandum 3), To the extent he contends he is that he never received a copy of the Memorandum Opinion, the Clerk mailed Supreme-El another copy of the March 3, 2015 Memorandum Opinion on March 20, 2015 in response to his letter. (See ECF No. 34.) An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability ("COA"). 28 U.S.C. § unless a prisoner makes a constitutional requirement is whether right." (or, should have issues presented been for proceed further.'" only U.S.C. when to COA will not issue that matter, in a agree different 'adequate Estelle, 463 satisfy § 2253(c)(2). "reasonable to this the manner or 880, could petition that encouragement 529 U.S. U.S. This jurists that) deserve Slack v. McDaniel, (quoting Barefoot v. fails 28 resolved were A "a substantial showing of the denial of satisfied debate Supreme-El 2253(c)(1)(A). 893 standard. 473, 484 & n.4 the to (2000) (1983)). Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will be denied. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Supreme-El. /•/ Asf> Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Date $f**l > let > */

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.