Case Information
*1 Case 2:05-cv-00128-RAE-TPG ECF No. 86 filed 12/11/06 PageID.901 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
_____________________
HENRI JOSEPH PLOVIE,
Case No. 2:05-CV-128 Plaintiff,
v. Hon. Richard Alan Enslen VICTORIA JACKSON, et al. , ORDER
Defendants. _____________________________/
Plaintiff Henri Joseph Plovie has filed two pro se motions: (1) a motion to alter or amend the Court’s Judgment Approving Report and Recommendation; and (2) a motion to make clerical corrections of the first motion. Oral argument is unnecessary in light of the briefing.
Plaintiff’s second motion requests a clerical correction so that the first motion be understood as brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), not Rule 56(e). This motion will be granted to that limited extent.
As for the first motion, relief is appropriate under Rule 59(e) due to: (1) an intervening change in law; (2) previously unavailable evidence has become available; and (3) the correction of a clear error of law or prevention of manifest injustice. See Gen. Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local No. 957 v. Dayton Newspapers, Inc. , 190 F.3d 434, 445 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing cases). Plaintiff’s motion concerns the third alternative–to prevent an error of law and/or manifest injustice. [1]
*2 Case 2:05-cv-00128-RAE-TPG ECF No. 86 filed 12/11/06 PageID.902 Page 2 of 2
Upon review of the said motion, the Court finds that the prior determination correctly analyzed the law, determined that Defendant was entitled to summary judgment, and further determined that Plaintiff should not be further permitted to amend his claims. As such, alteration of the judgment is inappropriate.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Henri Joseph Plovie’s Motion to Amend an Inadvertent Typographical Error (Dkt. No. 76) is GRANTED to the limited extent that Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Dkt. No. 65) is deemed filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Dkt. No. 65) is DENIED .
/s/ Richard Alan Enslen DATED in Kalamazoo, MI: RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN December 11, 2006 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[1] Documentary evidence was filed with the motion, but is the type which was previously available to Plaintiff