United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Magistrate Judge Jolson
OPINION & ORDER
ALGENON L. MARBLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED
matter is before the court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration. (ECF No. 20). For the reasons set forth
below, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is
filed a case in Licking County, Ohio and appealed to the
Fifth District Court of Appeals. During that process,
Plaintiff alleges the Fifth District Court of Appeals
committed fraud and that the court entries were
“against the manifest weight of the evidence, ”
all in violation of his right to due process. (ECF No. 1).
Plaintiff requested a remand to the appellate court.
Id. On November 6, 2017, Defendant filed a motion to
dismiss Plaintiff's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 3). This Court
dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). (ECF No. 15).
There was no need to evaluate Defendant's 12(b)(6)
dismissal, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF
No. 18). This Court dismissed the Motion for Reconsideration
because this Court had not made a clear error of law in
dismissing Plaintiff's case. (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff then
filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 20).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a court will
reconsider its own prior decision “if the moving party
demonstrates: (1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered
evidence that was not previously available to the parties; or
(3) an intervening change in controlling law.”
Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. Arctic
Express, Inc., 288 F.Supp.2d 895, 900 (S.D. Ohio 2003).
Courts may also alter or amend a judgment when necessary
“to prevent manifest injustice.” GenCorp.,
Inc. v. Am. Int'l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834
(6th Cir. 1999). Reconsideration due to a finding of manifest
injustice or a clear error of law requires “unique
circumstances, ” such as complete failure to address an
issue or claim. McWhorter v. ELSEA, Inc., No.
2:00-cv-473, 2006 WL 3483964, at *2 (S.D. Ohio 2006)
(citing Collison v. Int'l Chem. Workers Union, Local
217, 34 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 1994)). Even for motions
to reconsider interlocutory orders, courts respect the
importance of “grant[ing] some measure of finality ...
and [of] discourag[ing] the filing of endless motions for
reconsideration” in applying the relevant criteria.
Id. A motion under Rule 59(e) may not be brought to
relitigate issues previously considered by the Court or to
present evidence that could have been raised earlier. See
J.P. v. Taft, No. C2-04-692, 2006 WL 689091, at *3 (S.D.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
the previous Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff does not
cite any intervening change in controlling law, claim there
is new evidence, or assert manifest injustice. Thus, this
Court will assume Plaintiff alleges a clear error in the
previous order. This Court previously found that the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars subject matter
jurisdiction over Plaintiff's case. (ECF No. 18). The
Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes federal courts
from reviewing state court judgments. See District of
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462
(1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413
(1923). Because Plaintiff's claim asks this Court to
review the Fifth District Court of Appeals decision, the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits subject matter
jurisdiction. In addition, any discussion about failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) has already been disregarded as moot.
the motion for recusal, Plaintiff's argument is
unpersuasive. Plaintiff argues that he objected to the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation issued on
November 16, 2017 and that the failure of this Court to
consider the objections constitutes fraud and perjury. The
Sixth Circuit has held “a judge may disqualify himself
where a reasonable person with knowledge of all facts would
conclude that the judge's impartiality might be
questioned.” Burley v. Gagacki, 834 F.3d 606,
615-16 (6th Cir. 2016). This is a high standard.
is no evidence in the record that supports Plaintiff's
claim for recusal. Objections to a Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days.
If objections are not filed within this time period, the
parties waive their right to have the District Judge conduct
a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge specifically advised the parties of the
timeframe for objecting in the Report and Recommendation.
(ECF No. 9 at 2-3). Plaintiff filed objections only after
this Court had adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation. Additionally, this Court thereafter dismissed
the case for lack of jurisdiction, a matter on which the
Magistrate Judge did not rule. There was no fraud or perjury
by this Court.
reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion for