Keller v. Potter

Full title: RENEE V. KELLER, Plaintiff, v. JOHN E. POTTER, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Sep 30, 2005

Civil Action No. 02-cv-2297-WDM-OES (D. Colo. Sep. 30, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 02-cv-2297-WDM-OES.

September 30, 2005

ORDER ON MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

WALKER MILLER, District Judge

This case is before me on the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment issued October 4, 2004. The motion is opposed. For the reasons that follow, I conclude the motion should be denied.

A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment "should be granted only `to correct manifest errors of law or to present newly discovered evidence.'" Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff alleges I erred in granting summary judgment in defendants' favor because there were genuine issues of disputed fact. She complains that I should have ensured that substantial justice was done instead of "rigidly adher[ing]" to procedural rules.¹

1 In response to the motion for summary judgment, plaintiff failed to admit or deny defendants' stated facts as required by my Pretrial and Trial Procedures, § 6.3.

Upon review of the parties' arguments, I conclude that plaintiff has not raised either a manifest error of law or newly discovered evidence.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the motion to alter or amend the judgment, filed October 14, 2004, is denied.