Opinion
Case No. 7:15CV00674
03-21-2016
FREDDIE EUGENE CASEY, Plaintiff, v. JACK S. HURLEY, ET AL., Defendants.
Freddie Eugene Casey, Pro Se Plaintiff.
OPINION
Freddie Eugene Casey, Pro Se Plaintiff.
By Opinion and Order entered on March 3, 2016, I summarily dismissed this pro se prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as frivolous. Plaintiff Freddie Eugene Casey now moves to alter or amend that judgment, alleging factual and legal errors. Specifically, I found that because Casey's contention was merely that the state circuit court erroneously applied the [Virginia DNA testing] statute in deciding his case, I did not have jurisdiction over this claim under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
After review of the current motion, I remain convinced that Casey's Complaint stated no factual or legal basis for a § 1983 claim. I also find no basis in his current motion to alter or amend my prior ruling. Therefore, I will deny his motion.
A separate Order will be entered herewith.
DATED: March 21, 2016
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).