United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
L. Litkovitz Magistrate Judge
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TIMOTHY S. BLACK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
civil case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of
General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L.
Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge
reviewed the relevant pleading and, on July 15, 2019,
submitted a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 55), recommending
that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and relief
from judgment (Doc. 43) be denied. The Report and
Recommendation further DENIES as moot Plaintiff's request
for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 55). Plaintiff filed
objections to the Report and Recommendation on July 24, 2019
(Doc. 56) and Defendants filed a response in opposition to
the objections on August 6, 2019 (Doc. 57).
Plaintiff's 2010 civil case was dismissed on July 30,
2012, after Senior District Judge Sandra Beckwith granted
Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 36).
Plaintiff appealed the decision (Doc. 38) and, on July 3,
2013, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's
decision (Doc. 41). Plaintiff's current motion for
reconsideration was filed on November 9, 2018-six and a half
years after the dismissal of his case and five and half years
after the conclusion of his appeal. (Doc. 43). The Report and
Recommendation thoroughly sets forth a basis for denial of
the Report and Recommendation notes that Plaintiff's
motion fails to assert any clerical errors warranting
correction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a). (Doc. 55 at n.2).
Additionally, the motion is untimely and further fails to
assert any newly discovered evidence or other extraordinary
circumstances warranting relief under Rule 60(b).
(Id. at 3-5).
Plaintiff filed objections to the recommendations, the
objections amount to general disagreements with the Report
and Recommendation, as well as with the outcome of his 2010
civil case. (Doc. 56). Moreover, Plaintiff's objections often
undermine his request for relief. (Id.) For
instance, in response to the Magistrate Judge's
determination that there is no assertion of new evidence,
Plaintiff argues that the affidavit he now provides (six and
a half years too late) contains information known to him all
along and previously asserted before the district and
appellate court. (Id., Objs. 2, 4, 5).
required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b),
the Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the
Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the
filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing,
the Court determines that the Report and Recommendation (Doc.
55) should be, and is hereby, adopted in its entirety.
1. Plaintiff's objections to the Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 56) are OVERRULED;
2. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 55) is
3. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration/relief from
judgment (Doc. 43) is DENIED;
4. Because reasonable jurists would not debate the
Court's conclusions, the Court DENIES
issuance of a certificate of appealability, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254; and
5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court
certifies that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in
good faith and, therefore, this Court DENIES
Petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis.