United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania
August 19, 2014
ERIK LYBARGER, Petitioner
KEN CAMERON, WARDEN, S.C.I. HOUTZDALE, Respondent
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Keith A. Pesto, United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner's "Motion To Alter or Amend ..." at docket no. 8, and "Motion of Objections. . ." at docket no. 13, which I consider to be a single motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, was referred to me under 28 U.S.C.S 636(b)(3). The motion should be denied.
The motion does not suggest an intervening change in controlling law or the availability of new evidence, and does not show the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice, see Wiest v. Lynch. 710 F.3d 121, 128 (3d Cir.2013) (discussing three purposes of motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59): it simply re-argues that the court was wrong in dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b) (1), the parties are given notice that they have fourteen days to serve and file written objections to this Report and Recommendation.