MAHONE v. MIDTOWN MEDICAL CENTER et al

Filing 80

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 75 MOTION to Set Aside Judgment filed by THOMAS JAMES MAHONE, ORDER denying 76 MOTION for Sanctions filed by THOMAS JAMES MAHONE. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE STEPHEN HYLES on 11-5-18. (jdl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
THOMAS JAMES MAHONE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MIDTOWN MEDICAL CENTER,
et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 4:15-CV-180-CDL-MSH

ORDER AND
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for relief from judgment (ECF No.
75) and sanctions (ECF No. 76). For the reasons explained below, it is recommended that
Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment be denied. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is
denied.
BACKGROUND
On August 24, 2017, the undersigned submitted an Order and Report and
Recommendation, recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 32) be granted. Order and R. & R. 1, ECF No. 59. On September 27, 2017, that report
and recommendation was adopted as the order of the Court. Order, ECF No. 63. Judgment
was entered the same day (ECF No. 64). On May 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed motions for relief
from judgment (ECF No. 75) and sanctions (ECF No. 76). Defendants responded to both
motions on May 11, 2018 (ECF No. 77). These motions are ripe for review.

DISCUSSION
I.

Motion for Relief from Judgment
Plaintiff moves for relief from judgment under Fed R. Civ. P. 60(b). He argues that

the order granting summary judgment is void because all parties did not consent to the
Magistrate Judge exercising jurisdiction as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Mot. for
Relief from J. 3-4, ECF No. 75. Plaintiff also argues various officers of the Court
committed fraud by conspiring to enter the void judgment. Id. at 12-13.
Plaintiff’s motion is without merit. The Magistrate Judge did not enter the order
granting Defendants summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge submitted an order and
report and recommendation recommending that summary judgment for Defendants be
granted and also ruling on non-dispositive motions. See generally Order and R. & R. This
was within his authority. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Order, Nov. 9, 2015, ECF No. 3. The
District Judge granted Defendants summary judgment by entering an order approving and
adopting the report and recommendation.

Order, Sept. 27, 2017, ECF No. 63.

Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment (ECF No.
75) be denied.
II.

Motion for Sanctions
Plaintiff also moves for sanctions against various officers of the Court, contending

they violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 by fraudulently obtaining a judgment which was a
“nullity.” Mot. for Sanctions 1-2, ECF No. 76. As explained above, the judgment is not a
nullity. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is denied.

2

CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s motions for
relief from judgment (ECF No. 75) be denied. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No.
76) is denied. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written
objections to this Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to file objections, within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy hereof. The district judge shall make a
de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is
made. All other portions of the Recommendation may be reviewed for clear error.
The parties are hereby notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party
failing to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report
and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives
the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual
and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the
consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however,
the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.”
SO ORDERED and RECOMMENDED, this 5th day of November, 2018.
/s/ Stephen Hyles
UNTED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3