Lowrey v. Barrow County et al

Filing 39

ORDER denying 35 Motion for Relief from Dismissal Order; denying 38 Supplemental Motion for Relief from Dismissal Order. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 07/13/12. (sk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
ANTHONY BLAKE LOWREY,
INMATE NO. 23292,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARROW COUNTY; SHERIFF
JOEL ROBINSON; PRO-STRAIN
COMPANY; CORRECT
HEALRG; EVERCOM SERVICE
PROVIDER; GUARD
BAREFOOT; CORPORAL
TRUITT; and DEPUTY BOGGS,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS
42 U.S.C. § 1983

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:08-CV-0257-RWS

Defendants.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff Anthony Blake Lowrey
(“Plaintiff”)’s Motion for Relief from Dismissal Order [35] and Supplemental
Motion for Relief from Dismissal Order [38]. After reviewing the record, the
Court finds the Motions are due to be DENIED for the reasons that follow.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60(b), “the court may
relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

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). Furthermore, Rule 60(c)
provides that a Rule 60(b) motion “must be made within a reasonable time–and
for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment
or order . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c).
Plaintiff moves the Court to vacate its March 2, 2009 Order [8],
dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, under Rule
60(b)(6), the catch-all provision that authorizes relief from a final judgment or
order for “any other reason” that justifies it. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that
he is entitled to relief under this provision on grounds that the undersigned
“abused his authority” when he dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint. (See generally
Motion for Relief from Dismissal Order, Dkt. [35]; Supp. Motion for Relief
from Dismissal Order, Dkt. [38].) Although Plaintiff strenuously disagrees with
2

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

the Court’s ruling dismissing his Complaint for failure to state a claim, his
personal dissatisfaction with the Court’s decision does not entitle him to relief
under Rule 60(b)(6).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Dismissal Order [35] and
Supplemental Motion for Relief from Dismissal Order [38] are due to be
DENIED.
Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from
Dismissal Order [35] and Supplemental Motion for Relief from Dismissal Order
[38] are hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 13th day of July, 2012.

________________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
United States District Judge

3

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)