Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07549/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07549-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7549 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/11/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

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). 

Appeal: 15-7549 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/11/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-7549 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/11/2016 Pg: 3 of 3