Christopher Lumpkin v. Daugherty

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied as moot Christopher Lumpkin’s Rule 59(e) motion concerning a prior default judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Defendant Daugherty. The court also denied Lumpkin’s request to garnish the defendant, after Lumpkin confirmed that he was satisfied with the $3,000 damages award.

Holdings

1. A filing received within the requisite Rule 59(e) period is properly construed as a Rule 59(e) motion.
2. The Rule 59(e) motion was denied as moot because Lumpkin stated that he was satisfied with the $3,000 damages award and no longer sought reconsideration of the judgment.
3. The court denied Lumpkin's request to place a garnishment on Daugherty because Lumpkin did not identify a procedural vehicle authorizing the requested relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Lumpkin's filing received within twenty-eight days of the judgment should be construed as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
2. Whether the Rule 59(e) motion should be denied as moot after Lumpkin stated that he was satisfied with the $3,000 judgment.
3. Whether the court could grant Lumpkin's request to place a garnishment on Defendant Daugherty without an identified procedural vehicle authorizing that relief.

Disposition

other