Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Matthews v. Hollingsworth

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


August 25, 2010

FRANK MATTHEWS, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
LISA J. HOLLINGSWORTH, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge

ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 16) of the Court's August 10, 2010 Order (Doc. 14) adopting the Report and Recommendations ("R&R") (Doc. 13), issued on July 12, 2010, by United States Magistrate Judge Frazier, recommending that Matthews' § 2241 habeas petition (Doc. 1) be denied and the habeas litigation dismissed. The Court adopted the R&R because neither Party filed objections. In Petitioner's instant Motion, he states that he never received his service copy of the R&R or else he certainly would have timely filed objections thereto. He prays that the Court grant his Motion, vacate its August 10, 2010 Order and August 12, 2010 Judgment and allow him an extension of time to file his objections to the R&R for the Court's consideration. He moves pursuant to FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 59(e).

Rule 59(e) motions serve a narrow purpose and must clearly establish either: (1) a manifest error of law or fact or (2) present newly discovered evidence. Moro v. Shell Oil Co., 91 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 1996); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986); Publishers Resource, Inc. v. Walker-Davis Publications, Inc., 762 F.2d 557, 561 (7th Cir. 1985). "The rule essentially enables a district court to correct its own errors, sparing the parties and the appellate courts the burden of unnecessary appellate proceedings." Russell v. Delco Remy Div. of General Motors Corp., 51 F.3d 746, 749 (7th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).

The Court finds that while it did not err in its determination that timely objections were not filed, there was an erroneous assumption that both sides had properly been served their copy of the R&R, if the Court is to take Petitioner at his word. The Court finds good cause to do so and hereby GRANTS Petitioner's Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 16). Accordingly, its August 10, 2010 Order (Doc. 14) and August 12, 2010 Judgment (Doc. 15), are both VACATED. This case shall be reopened, with the R&R to again be pending for the Court's ruling thereon. Petitioner is allowed until September 14, 2010 to file his objections to the R&R (Doc. 13). The Clerk if further DIRECTED to provide Petitioner with his service copy of the R&R (Doc. 13) along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DavidRHer|do| Chief Judge United States District Court

20100825

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.