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.

Lee v. Money Gram Corporate Office

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

June 25, 2018

ROBERT E. LEE, Plaintiff,
v.
MONEY GRAM CORPORATE OFFICE, Defendant.

          Mona K. Majzoub United States Magistrate Judge

          OPINION AND ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ADD ON COPY OF HARASSMENT LETTER AND TO STAY (ECF NO. 18) AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ADD ON RECONSIDERATION AND FOR A CONSULTANT (ECF NO. 19)

          PAUL D. BORMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On June 27, 2016, this Court entered an Order Adopting Magistrate Judge Majzoub's May 23, 2016 Report and Recommendation to grant Plaintiff's application to proceed without prepayment of fees and dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 9, Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Complaint.) On September 20, 2017, this Court entered an Order Adopting Magistrate Judge Majzoub's June 23, 2017 Report and Recommendation to deny Plaintiff's “Motion to Submit New Address, ” a motion filed without reference to any rule and which Magistrate Judge Majzoub appropriately construed as a motion for relief from judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). (ECF No. 15, Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Denying Motion to Submit New Address.) Before the Court are additional filings by Plaintiff presumably asking once again that this Court revisit its prior rulings in this case. For the reasons that follow, the Plaintiff's motions are denied.

         Plaintiff has now filed two additional “motions” (ECF Nos. 18, 19), one of which appears to add a defendant to this closed case, and an apparently related filing (ECF No. 17), that again do not rely on any court rule or seek any specific form of relief and which this Court construes as requests for relief from judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). It is unclear whether Plaintiff is seeking to have this Court revisit its June 27, 2016 Order or its September 20, 2017 Order but in either case, the Plaintiff's filings do not provide any valid basis for setting aside either Order of this Court.

         Rule 60(b) allows the Court, upon motion, to relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding based upon any of the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

         Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time - and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1). “Regardless of circumstances, no court can consider a motion brought under Rule 60(b)(1), (2), or (3) a year after judgment.” In re G.A.D., Inc., 340 F.3d 331, 334 (6th Cir. 2003)(citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); McDowell v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 931 F.2d 380, 384 (6th Cir. 1991)). “[R]elief under Rule 60(b) is circumscribed by public policy favoring finality of judgments and termination of litigation. Accordingly, the party seeking relief under Rule 60(b) bears the burden of establishing the grounds for such relief by clear and convincing evidence.” Info-Hold, Inc. v. Sound Merchandising, Inc., 538 F.3d 448, 454 (6th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

         Even considering Plaintiff's pro se status, he has failed to establish grounds for relief under Rule 60(b). As to the Court's June 27, 2016 order dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint, the only available basis for seeking relief as to that Order would be Rule 60(b)(6), as a motion invoking relief under Rules 60(b)(1-3) must be filed within one year of the final judgment or order appealed from and the Court can discern no basis for the application of Rules 60(b)(4-5). Plaintiff has not demonstrated entitlement to relief under Rule 60(b)(6):

[R]elief under Rule 60(b) is “circumscribed by public policy favoring finality of judgments and termination of litigation.” Waifersong Ltd., Inc. v. Classic Music Vending, 976 F.2d 290, 292 (6th Cir.1992). This is especially true in an application of subsection (6) of Rule 60(b), which applies “only in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances which are not addressed by the first five numbered clauses of the Rule.” Olle v. Henry & Wright Corp., 910 F.2d 357, 365 (6th Cir. 1990); see also Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863-64, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988). This is because “almost every conceivable ground for relief is covered” under the other subsections of Rule 60(b). Olle, 910 F.2d at 365; see also Hopper v. Euclid Manor Nursing Home, Inc., 8 ...

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.