Opinion
CIVIL ACTION 16-637-SDD-RLB
07-18-2019
AARON FRANCOIS (#603619) v. STEPHANIE LAMARTINIERE. ET AL.
RULING
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Objection and Request for Reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 208) which the Court construes as a Motion for Relief Under Rule 60(b). This Motion shall be denied.
On May 24, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Rec. Doc. 204) recommending that the Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment be denied, the Plaintiff's claims against Jane Doe 4 be dismissed without prejudice, and the remaining Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, dismissing the Plaintiff's claims against the remaining Defendants with prejudice. The Plaintiff objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. See Rec. Doc. 205. After considering the Plaintiff's objections, the Plaintiff's claims were dismissed as set forth above. See Rec. Docs. 206 and 207. The Plaintiff has now filed the instant motion, presumably pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) since the Plaintiff has not provided any factual assertions which would support the applicability of any of the first five subsections of Rule 60(b).
Rule 60(b)(6) allows a Court to vacate a judgment for "any other reason that justifies such relief" and provides a residual clause meant to cover unforeseen contingencies and to accomplish justice in exceptional circumstances. Steverson v. GlobalSantaFe Corp., 508 F.3d 300, 303 (5th Cir. 2007). The relief afforded by Rule 60(b)(6) is meant to be extraordinary relief, and it requires that the moving party make a showing of extraordinary circumstances justifying such relief. Hess v. Cockrell, 281 F.3d 212, 216, (5th Cir. 2002).
In the instant motion, the Plaintiff has made no showing of unusual or unique circumstances to support the application of Rule 60(b)(6). Rather, the Plaintiff asserts that the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge were clearly wrong. This argument has already been considered by the Court in reviewing the Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. As such, the Plaintiff has not shown that he is entitled to relief. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Relief Under Rule 60(b) (Rec. Doc. 208) be and is hereby DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on July 18, 2019.
/s/ _________
CHIEF JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA