From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Aubuchon

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jul 7, 2021
2:14-cv-00775-KJM-DMC (E.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2021)

Opinion

2:14-cv-00775-KJM-DMC

07-07-2021

Granville William Smith, IV, Plaintiff, v. B. Aubuchon, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Judgment was entered in this case on October 6, 2020 after this court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. See Judgment, ECF No. 156; Order, ECF No. 155. Plaintiff has now filed objections to this court's and the magistrate judge's orders, which the court construes as a motion for relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Objs., ECF No. 161 (quoting Rule 60(b) under the heading “Relief”). Plaintiff has not shown he is entitled to relief from the judgment for any reason listed in that rule:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

The motion at ECF No. 161 is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Smith v. Aubuchon

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jul 7, 2021
2:14-cv-00775-KJM-DMC (E.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2021)
Case details for

Smith v. Aubuchon

Case Details

Full title:Granville William Smith, IV, Plaintiff, v. B. Aubuchon, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jul 7, 2021

Citations

2:14-cv-00775-KJM-DMC (E.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2021)