Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Burse v. Jenkins

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

March 31, 2017

PERRIN BURSE, Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLOTTE JENKINS, et al., Defendants.

          Michael H. Watson, Judge.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

          KIMBERLY A. JOLSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on numerous Motions. Specifically, currently before this Court for consideration are: Plaintiff's “Motion Requesting Leave To Supplement The Complaint, Pursuant To FRCP 15(E), And To Demand Judgment For Defendants' Default Pursuant To FRCP 54(c) And 55, In Reference To Defendants' Attempt To Commit Fraud Upon the Court” (Doc. 57); “Defendants' Motion For Leave To Supplement Discovery And Response In Opposition To Plaintiff's Motions To Supplement The Complaint And Default Judgment” (Doc. 58); Plaintiff's “Motion For Appointment Of Counsel, Pursuant To 28 USCS 1915, Due To Special Circumstances” (Doc. 60; see Response in Opposition (Doc. 61)); and Plaintiff's Motions “Of Judicial Inquiry For Possible Outstanding Motions” (Docs. 62, 63). The Court examines the pending Motions in turn.

         I. Plaintiff's “Motion Requesting Leave To Supplement The Complaint, Pursuant To FRCP 15(E), And To Demand Judgment For Defendants' Default Pursuant To FRCP 54(c) And 55, In Reference To Defendants' Attempt To Commit Fraud Upon the Court” (Doc. 57)

         Although not entirely clear, Plaintiff filed the Motion seeking to add a claim of “Fraud Upon the Court” based on Defendants' alleged misrepresentations concerning when Plaintiff received certain mail and for their deliberate attempt to delay the litigation of this case. (Doc. 57 at 3-4 (alleging alteration of the prison mail log)). Plaintiff's arguments relate to Defendants' Response To The Report And Recommendation (Doc. 52) And Defendants' Response To Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 55). On March 29, 2016, this Court issued an Opinion and Order that, inter alia, adopted and affirmed the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 64). Consequently, it is RECOMMENDED that the Motion be DENIED as MOOT. (Doc. 57).

         II. Defendants' Motion For Leave To Supplement Discovery And Response In Opposition To Plaintiff's Motions To Supplement The Complaint And Default Judgment (Doc. 58)

         In the Motion, Defendants explain that this case has been handled by several attorneys, which resulted in the need to supplement discovery. (Doc. 58). It appears Defendants have already done so. (See id.). Further, this Court's March 29, 2017, Opinion and Order allowed the parties until Monday, May 1, 2017, to file dispositive motions and did not contemplate the need for further discovery in this case. For these reasons, the Motion is DENIED as MOOT. (Doc. 58).

         III. Plaintiff's “Motion For Appointment Of Counsel, Pursuant To 28 USCS 1915, Due To Special Circumstances” (Doc. 60; see Response in Opposition (Doc. 61))

         Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel due to special circumstances. (Doc. 60). Since this action has not yet progressed to the point that the Court is able to evaluate the merits of Plaintiff's claim, the Motion is DENIED. (Id.).

         IV. Plaintiff's Motions “Of Judicial Inquiry For Possible Outstanding Motions” (Docs. 62, 63)

         In the Motions Of Judicial Inquiry, Plaintiff inquires as to whether there has been a ruling on his “Motion Requesting Leave To Supplement The Complaint, Pursuant To FRCP 15(E), And To Demand Judgment For Defendants' Default Pursuant To FRCP 54(c) And 55, In Reference To Defendants' Attempt To Commit Fraud Upon the Court” (Doc. 57) and Defendants' Motion For Leave To Supplement Discovery And Response In Opposition To Plaintiff's Motions To Supplement The Complaint And Default Judgment (Doc. 58). Because the instant Report and Recommendation and Order addresses those Motions, the Motions Of Judicial Inquiry are DENIED as MOOT. (Docs. 62, 63).

         V. CONCLUSION

         For the reasons set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's “Motion Requesting Leave To Supplement The Complaint, Pursuant To FRCP 15(E), And To Demand Judgment For Defendants' Default Pursuant To FRCP 54(c) And 55, In Reference To Defendants' Attempt To Commit Fraud Upon the Court” be DENIED as MOOT. (Doc. 57). Further, Defendants' Motion For Leave To Supplement Discovery And Response In Opposition To Plaintiff's Motions To Supplement The Complaint And Default Judgment is DENIED as MOOT (Doc. 58), Plaintiff's “Motion For Appointment Of Counsel, Pursuant To 28 USCS 1915, Due To Special Circumstances” is DENIED (Doc. 60), and Plaintiff's Motions “Of Judicial Inquiry For Possible Outstanding Motions” (Docs. 62, 63) are DENIED as MOOT.

         Procedure on Objections to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.