Jackson et al v. Matlock et al
ORDER DENYING 6 Motion for Reconsideration filed by Chandra Lyons J. Jackson. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on September 16, 2013. Copy of order mailed to non-CM/ECF participants. (jas)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
CHANDRA LYONS J. JACKSON; and
JOE NATHAN JACKSON, JR.
Case No. 2:12-CV-02307
JANET MATLOCK, Chuck Fawcett Realty;
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE CLAIRE BORENGASSER,
Sebastian County; CHUCK FAWCETT; LINDA
BENDER; and DAVID BENDER
Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. 6) for reconsideration. On February
12, 2013, the Court entered an Order (Doc. 5) adopting the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 3)
filed by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, Chief United States Magistrate Judge for the Western
District of Arkansas, on December 6, 2012. The Order dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without
prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration of this Order is DENIED.
Under Rule 60(b), a party may be relieved from an order of the Court under certain
enumerated circumstances, including the existence of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect” or “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) and (6). Rule 60(b)
“provides for extraordinary relief which may be granted only upon an adequate showing of
exceptional circumstances.” United States v. Young, 806 F.2d 805, 806 (8th Cir. 1986). None of
the circumstances envisioned by Rule 60(b) for finding that reconsideration may be warranted are
present in this case, and relief is not otherwise justified. Plaintiff does not even address the Court’s
finding that it lacked jurisdiction to address her claims.
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 6) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of September, 2013.
s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?