McCarter v. Nutter, No. 3:2014cv00356 - Document 15 (E.D. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 09/19/2014. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff on 9/19/2014.(tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division ERIC C. McCARTER, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 3:14CV356 T.L. NUTTER, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Eric C. McCarter, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil action. By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on August 19, 2014, this Court dismissed the action without prejudice because McCarter failed to return a consent to collection of fees form and did not pay the statutory filing fee within the time required by the Memorandum Order entered on May 28, 2014. On August 26, 2014, the Court received from McCarter a letter that the Court construes as a motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 59(e) ("Rule 59(e) Motion") (ECF No. 11). McCarter challenges the Court's August 19, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order, returns a completed consent to collection of fees form, and informs the Court that he "still want[s] to file this civil suit." (Rule 59(e) Mot. 1.) 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, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993) (citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers Co., 771 F. Supp. 1406, 1419 (D. Md. 1991); Atkins v.
]]>
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.
