Opinion
Case No. 2:06-cv-467.
July 20, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Sidney Lewis' Motion to Reconsider pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). For the following reasons, Mr. Lewis' motion will be denied.
I.
The relief available under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) "is extraordinary and may be granted only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances." Stotts v. Memphis Fire Dept., 679 F.2d 541, 562 (6th Cir. 1982), rev'd on other grounds, 467 U.S. 561 (1984). Whether to grant Rule 60(b) relief is within the district court's discretion. Marshall v. Monroe Sons, Inc., 615 F.2d 1156, 1160 (6th Cir. 1980); Williams v. Arn, 654 F.Supp. 241, 246 (N.D.Ohio 1987). A party seeking relief under Rule 60(b) is required to show that its case comes within the provisions of the rule. Lewis v. Alexander, 987 F.2d 392, 396 (6th Cir. 1993). Rule 60(b) provides in pertinent part:
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of judgment.
II.
In the instant case, it appears that Mr. Lewis is arguing that (reproduced verbatim):
On May 3, 2006, at the time of the Court of Common Pleas rendering an unconstitutional grant of Summary Judgment in favor of Western Surety Company of this administrative cause pursuant to Ohio Revised Codes, §§ 3929.01(A)(20), 4707.11, and that court's entry of the final judgment of May 4, 2006, pursuant to R.C. § 2323.52, the dismissal and remand Order of this U.S. District Court had not been issued until June 15, 2006; Yet, on June 15, 2006, at the time of the U.S. District Court's dismissal and remand Order, Plaintiff Sidney Lewis had requested a final " Administrative Rehearing" and "final administrative adjudication order" pursuant to R.C. §§ 119.01(D), 119.06 on the grounds that an " Administrative Order is not final for purposes of judicial review until agency has disposed of outstanding petitions for reconsideration. . . ."
* * *
This Court entered its order dismissing and remanding Plaintiff's Statutory claims in the business of insurance, the same day following the Plaintiff's filing of " Petition for Rehearing", on June 15, 2006, at which time the dismissal and remand Order had not as yet been received by Plaintiff.
(Motion for Reconsideration (doc. #6) at pp. 3-4 (footnote omitted).)
This Court concludes that Mr. Lewis failed to argue and prove any of the factors outlined in Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1)-(6). After reviewing Mr. Lewis' motion, it appears that Mr. Lewis failed to demonstrate that his motion for removal was timely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1452 or 1446.
III.
Mr. Lewis' Motion to Reconsider (doc. #6) is DENIED.