UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7549
JEFFREY A. PLEASANT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:15-cv-00218-REP-RCY)
Submitted: February 26, 2016 Decided: March 11, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey A. Pleasant appeals the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of
a prior order. ∗ A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion
only for the following limited reasons: “(1) to accommodate an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new
evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error
of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Mayfield v. Nat’l Ass’n
for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir.
2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review the
district court’s denial of a Rule 59(e) motion for abuse of
discretion. Id.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Pleasant’s
arguments are without merit, as his claims either fail to
establish that the district court abused its discretion or rely
on waived arguments. Accordingly, although we grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s order.
We dismiss without prejudice Pleasant’s premature petition for
rehearing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
∗ Pleasant separately appealed, and we affirmed, the
district court’s underlying order. Pleasant v. Clarke, 620 F.
App’x 197 (4th Cir. 2015) (No. 15-6731).
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3