From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garnett v. Bd. of Educ.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Aug 2, 2023
5:19CV2864 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 2, 2023)

Opinion

5:19CV2864

08-02-2023

Mark D. Garnett, Plaintiff, v. Akron City School District Board of Education, et al., Defendants.


ORDER (RESOLVING DOC. 86)

JOHN R. ADAMS JUDGE.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to reopen his time to file an amended notice of appeal. Upon review, the motion is DENIED.

At the heart of Plaintiff's argument is the assertion in his affidavit that he did not receive notice of the Court's January 19, 2023 order denying his motion for relief from judgment. However, the Court mailed Plaintiff a copy of that order on the day it was issued at his address of record. Moreover, as the order contained both substantive rulings and the removal of counsel, Plaintiff was still represented by counsel at the time the order was issued. Accordingly, there is no basis to reopen the time to appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Garnett v. Bd. of Educ.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Aug 2, 2023
5:19CV2864 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 2, 2023)
Case details for

Garnett v. Bd. of Educ.

Case Details

Full title:Mark D. Garnett, Plaintiff, v. Akron City School District Board of…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Aug 2, 2023

Citations

5:19CV2864 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 2, 2023)