From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pryor v. Wayne Cnty.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Aug 30, 2011
Case Number 09-13185 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 30, 2011)

Opinion

Case Number 09-13185

08-30-2011

EDWARD PRYOR, Plaintiff, v. WAYNE COUNTY, JEROME PANACKIA, MAUREEN MCMILLAN, DWIGHT FULLILOVE, LUCIOUS JACKSON, ANTHONY MILO, MAURICE THOMAS, and DARON WEATHERSPOON, Defendants.


Honorable David M. Lawson

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF

On July 18, 2011, the plaintiff filed several motions seeking leave to file responses out of time to several motions filed by the defendants. None of the plaintiff's motions indicated whether plaintiff's counsel sought concurrence in the relief requested from counsel for the defendants, as plaintiff's counsel was obliged to do under the local rules. Accordingly, on July 21, 2011, this Court entered an order denying the plaintiff's motions for leave to file responses out of time. Now before the Court is the plaintiff's August 15, 2011 motion for relief from the July 21, 2011 order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1).

Rule 60(b) provides, in pertinent part:

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relief a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect . . .
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). "Relief may be granted under this subsection only where a party has made an excusable litigation mistake, an attorney has acted without authority, or a judge has made a substantive mistake of law or fact in the final judgment or order." Stephens v. Crabtree, 72 Fed. Appx. 351, 352-53 (6th Cir. 2003).

In his motion, the plaintiff argues that he attempted to contact the defendant several times to seek concurrence for his July 18, 2011 motions prior to filing these motions, and that his statement of concurrence erroneously states that these attempts occurred on July 20, 2011. In this case, the Court is not persuaded that relief is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion for Relief [dkt. #102] is DENIED.

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on August 30, 2011.

DEBORAH R. TOFIL


Summaries of

Pryor v. Wayne Cnty.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Aug 30, 2011
Case Number 09-13185 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 30, 2011)
Case details for

Pryor v. Wayne Cnty.

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD PRYOR, Plaintiff, v. WAYNE COUNTY, JEROME PANACKIA, MAUREEN…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Aug 30, 2011

Citations

Case Number 09-13185 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 30, 2011)