Opinion
Case No. 1:13-cv-173
12-30-2013
DELFON BLAIR, Plaintiff, v. WALMART, et al., Defendants.
Beckwith, J.
Bowman, M.J.
ORDER AND REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion for assistance in obtaining counsel and motion to reopen, which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 24, 25).
As a general rule, motions for reconsideration are not favored unless the movant demonstrates: "(1) a manifest error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence which was not available previously to the parties; or (3) intervening authority." Meekison v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, 181 F.R.D. 571, 572 (S.D. Ohio 1998) (citing Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985)). In this case, there is no intervening change of controlling law, nor has plaintiff submitted new evidence that cures the deficiencies identified in the Court's April 16, 2013 Order. (Doc. 17). The Court is not aware of any need to correct a clear error or to prevent manifest injustice.
Plaintiff has not alleged any facts or cited any legal authority which suggests that reconsideration of the Court's Order is warranted. If plaintiff wishes to obtain review of the Court's Order, he must pursue an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion to reopen (Doc. 25) be DENIED.
Because the undersigned recommends that plaintiff's motion to reopen be denied, plaintiff's motion for assistance in obtaining counsel (Doc. 24) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge
DELFON BLAIR, Plaintiff,
vs. WALMART, et al., Defendants.
Case No. 1:13-cv-173
Beckwith, J.
Bowman, M.J.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).