IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION DONOVAN WILLINGHAM PLAINTIFF v. No. 4:19CV40-GHD-JMV STATE OF MISSISSIPPI MARSHALL TURNER DEFENDANTS ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT This matter comes before the court on the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court’s April 2, 2020, final judgment dismissing the instant case for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court interprets the motion, using the liberal standard for pro se litigants set forth in Haines v. Kerner,

(1972), as a motion to amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), which must be filed within 28 days of entry of judgment. An order granting relief under Rule 59(e) is appropriate when: (1) there has been an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) where the movant presents newly discovered evidence that was previously unavailable, or (3) to correct a manifest error of law or fact. Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc.,

(5" Cir. 2003). The court dismissed the only two defendants in the case, but invited the plaintiff to identify defendants personally involved in the allegations of his complaint. He has not done so. As such, the plaintiff has neither asserted nor proven any of the justifications to amend a judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). As such, the plaintiffs request to alter or amend judgment is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this, the MN ay of September, 2020. da Yate SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE □