Meadows v. Charles Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Educ.

Full title: DEBRA F. MEADOWS v. CHARLES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Date published: Dec 21, 2017

Civil Action No. DKC 16-2897 (D. Md. Dec. 21, 2017)

Opinion

Civil Action No. DKC 16-2897

12-21-2017

DEBRA F. MEADOWS v. CHARLES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.

DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing Plaintiff's retaliation claim, granting judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff's claims relating to Title VII and violation(s) of the ADA, and closing the case on December 5, 2017. (ECF Nos. 80 and 81).

On December 15, Plaintiff hand delivered to the clerk an unsigned document titled "Affidavit" and containing hundreds of pages of exhibits.¹ Plaintiff's document will be returned to her because, pursuant to Local Rule, when a party is appearing without counsel, the Clerk will accept for filing only documents signed by that party.

1 The Clerk is directed to docket Plaintiff's 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 tax returns attached as exhibits to Plaintiff's document as private and not available for public viewing. --------

Although the document is unsigned and will be returned to Plaintiff, consideration of the contents would not result in any relief for Plaintiff. If construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, the motion would be denied. See MLC Auto, LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4^th Cir. 2008); Lemon v. Hong, No. ELH-16-979, 2016 WL 3087451, *2 (D.Md. June 2, 2016).

In this circuit, "there are three grounds for amending an earlier judgment: (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." Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4^th Cir. 1998). The Rule 59 motion "may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." 11 Charles Allen Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2810.1 (3d ed. 2009).

Plaintiff's document does not satisfy the standard of Rule 59(e). Plaintiff already had an opportunity to litigate these issues. If Plaintiff wants review of that decision, she may appeal.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's unsigned document titled "Affidavit" and construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment, is DENIED and the Clerk is DIRECTED to return it to her with a copy of this Order. December 21, 2017

/s/_________

DEBORAH K. CHASANOW

United States District Judge