Blakey v. Herring et al, No. 3:2017cv00468 - Document 12 (E.D. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 10/26/2017. Copy to Pro Se Plaintiff. (jsmi, )
Download PDF
Blakey v. Herring et al Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division WILLIAM THORNTON BLAKEY, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. MARK HERRING, ^ 3:17CV468 al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION By 2017, Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on October 10, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice because William Thornton Blakey failed to affirm his intention to pay the full filing fee by signing and returning a consent to the collection of fees On received a action. (ECF No. 10, at 1.) purse the lacked his letter form. action motion because October "requesting 23, 2017, reinstatement the Court of" this Blakey contends that he could not he was transferred legal materials after he was and because transferred. he (id.) Because the letter motion was filed within twenty-eight days of the entry of judgment, the Court construes the motion as one filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 59(e) ("Rule Motion.") "[R]econsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly." Pac. Ins. Co. (4th V. Am. Nat^l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 Cir. 1998) The (citation United omitted) States (internal Court of quotation Appeals for marks the omitted). Fourth Circuit recognizes three grounds for relief under Rule 59(e): accommodate account an for correct a intervening new evidence clear error of Hutchinson v, Staton, change not (D. F.R.D. Md. 625, 1991); 626 at 994 F.2d v. 1076, 1081 v. Marathon to or (3) to injustice." (4th Cir. 1993) 771 F. Koppers Co., Atkins (2) trial; law or prevent manifest (citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. 1419 available to law; in controlling "(1) Supp. 1406, LeTourneau Co. , 130 (S.D. Miss. 1990)). Blakey fails to demonstrate any persuasive reason why the Court should dismissed return a 2017, reinstate the action consent this action because to the on the Blakey collection of docket. failed fees to form. The Court complete On August and 2, the Court mailed a consent to the collection of fees form and an m forma pauperis affidavit form to Blakey and instructed him that he must complete and return both forms within thirty days. Blakey apparently received completed and returned the ^ forms forma pauperis form. did not complete and return the fees form. these because he However, he consent to the collection of Blakey fails to demonstrate that the Court committed a clear error of law or that reopening his case is necessary to prevent manifest other basis injustice. for granting Rule Nor does 59(e) Blakey relief. demonstrate any See Williams v. Virginia, 524 F. App'x 40, 41 {4th Cir. 2013) ("The reconsideration of a judgment after entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly," {citing Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 Accordingly, Blakey's Rule 59 {e) Motion {4th Cir. 1998))). (ECF No. 10) will be denied. Nevertheless, pursue his claims. send Blakey a complaint. it appears that Blakey wishes to continue to Accordingly, standard form for the Clerk will be directed to filing a 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 If Blakey wishes to pursue his claims, he may submit a new complaint that will be filed as a new civil action. Court will process any new complaint upon Blakey. its receipt The from No further action will be taken in this closed case. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Blakey. I t is so ORDERED, /s/ Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Date: Richmond, Virginia