Wagner v. Warden

34 Citing cases

  1. Travis C. v. Saul

    Case No.: GJH-18-1210 (D. Md. Nov. 10, 2020)   Cited 7 times

    "Clear error or manifest injustice occurs where a court 'has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension[.]'" Wagner v. Warden, No. CV ELH-14-791, 2016 WL 1169937, at *3 (D. Md. Mar. 24, 2016) (quoting King v. McFadden, 2015 WL 4937292 * 2 (D.S.C. August 18, 2015)). "[M]ere disagreement with the Court's previous decision will not suffice.

  2. Redmond v. Walmart, Inc.

    CIVIL TJS-23-0236 (D. Md. Oct. 1, 2024)

    “The decision to grant a Rule 59(e) motion is a matter within the broad discretion of the trial court.” Wagner v. Warden, No. ELH-14-791, 2016 WL 1169937, at *1 (D. Md. Mar. 24, 2016) (citing Pac. Ins. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins., 148 F.3d 396, 402 (4th Cir. 1998)).

  3. Mancilla v. Chesapeake Outdoor Servs.

    CIVIL 1:22-cv-00032-JMC (D. Md. May. 10, 2024)

    Clear error or manifest injustice occurs where a court has “patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.” Brault, 2019 WL 7293396, at *2 (citing Wagner v. Warden, No. ELH-14-791, 2016 WL 1169937, at *3 (D. Md. Mar. 24, 2016)). “A prior decision does not qualify for this third exception by being ‘just maybe or probably wrong; it must . . . strike us with the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated dead fish.'” TFWS, Inc. v. Franchot, 572 F.3d 186, 194 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bellsouth Telesensor v. Info. Sys. & Networks Corp., 1995 WL 520978, at *5 n.5 (4th Cir. 1995) (unpublished)); Woodruff v. United States, No. 1:22-CV-00826-JMC, 2023 WL 8716877,

  4. Jeffries v. Md. Dep't of Hous. & Cmty. Dev.

    CIVIL 8:22-cv-00526-AAQ (D. Md. Mar. 12, 2024)

    . “Clear error or manifest injustice occurs where a court ‘has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension ....'” Wagner v. Warden, No. ELH-14-791, 2016 WL 1169937, at *3 (D. Md. Mar. 24, 2016) (quoting King v. McFadden, No. 14-cv-91-JMC, 2015 WL 4937292, at *2 (D.S.C. Aug. 18, 2015)). To justify altering or amending a judgment on this basis, “the prior judgment cannot be ‘just maybe or probably wrong; it must . . . strike [the court] as wrong with the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated dead fish.'” Fontell v. Hassett, 891 F.Supp.2d 739, 741 (D. Md. 2012) (alterations in original) (quoting TFWS, Inc. v. Franchot, 572 F.3d 186, 194 (4th Cir. 2009)).

  5. Woodruff v. United States

    Civil 1:22-cv-00826-JMC (D. Md. Dec. 18, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Clear error or manifest injustice occurs where a court has “patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.” Brault, 2019 WL 7293396 at *2 (citing Wagner v. Warden, No. ELH-14-791, 2016 WL 1169937, at *3 (D. Md. Mar. 24, 2016)).

  6. Troy Brave, LLC v. Grantsville Truck & Trailer, LLC

    CIVIL 1:22-cv-02409-JMC (D. Md. Nov. 21, 2023)

    Clear error or manifest injustice occurs where a court has “patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.” Brault, 2019 WL 7293396 at *2 (citing Wagner v. Warden, No. ELH-14-791, 2016 WL 1169937, at *3 (D. Md. Mar. 24, 2016)).

  7. United States v. Eighty

    7:04-CR-00072 (W.D. Va. Oct. 27, 2023)

    “Clear error or manifest injustice occurs where a court ‘has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension....'” Wagner v. Warden, No. CV ELH-14-791, 2016 WL 1169937, at *3 (D. Md. Mar. 24, 2016) (quoting King v. McFadden, 2015 WL 4937292 * 2 (D.S.C. August 18, 2015.)) “‘In the context of a motion to reconsider, manifest injustice is defined as an error by the court that is direct, obvious, and observable.'” Id- (quoting Saunders v. Riverside Regional Jail, No. 3:10CV258-HEH, 2012 WL 2192262 (E.D. Va. June 14, 2012)).

  8. Starr v. VSL Pharm.

    Civil Action 19-02173-LKG (D. Md. May. 31, 2023)

    This Court has held that “[c]lear error or manifest injustice occurs where a court ‘has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension. . .'” Wagner v. Warden, No. ELH-14-791, 2016 WL 1169937, at *3 (D. Md. Mar. 24, 2016) (quoting King v. McFadden, 2015 WL 4937292, at *2 (D.S.C. August 18, 2015)). But “mere disagreement” with the Court's ruling does not support a motion to reconsider.

  9. Gibson v. Frederick Cnty.

    CIVIL SAG-22-1642 (D. Md. Mar. 29, 2023)

    ]'” Wagner v. Warden, No. 14-791, 2016 WL 1169937, at *3 (D. Md. Mar. 24, 2016) (quoting King v. McFadden, No. 14-91, 2015 WL 4937292, at *2 (D.S.C. Aug. 18, 2015)).

  10. Int'l Painters & Allied Trades Indus. Pension Fund v. I. Losch, Inc.

    Civ. BPG-19-3492 (D. Md. Jan. 3, 2023)

    This court has repeatedly recognized that “[c]lear error or manifest injustice occurs where a court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.” Smith, 2020 WL 128670, at *2 (citing Wagner v. Warden, No. ELH-14-791, 2016 WL 1169937, at *3 (D. Md. Mar. 24, 2016)). To that end, “mere disagreement with the Court's previous decision will not suffice.”