Mathews v. South Bend City of et al
Filing
101
OPINION AND ORDER denying 97 Motion to correct error. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 8/9/13. (smp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
PAMELA MATHEWS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SOUTH BEND, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL NO. 3:10cv390
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on a “Motion to Correct Error”, filed by the plaintiff,
Pamela Mathews (“Mathews”) on May 29, 2013. Mathews is proceeding pro se. The
defendants, City of South Bend (“the City”), and Aladean M. DeRose in her individual and
official capacities (“DeRose”), filed their response on June 25, 2013, to which Mathews replied
on July 19, 2013.
For the following reasons, the motion to correct will be denied.
Discussion
On May 16, 2013, this court entered its Opinion and Order granting defendants’ motion
for summary judgment and denying Mathews motion to strike, finding that “no defendants or
claims remain in this case” and ordering that a Clerk’s Judgment be entered.
Mathews has now filed a motion to correct errors, citing to Indiana Trial Rule 59.
However, Mathews’ case is in federal court, and the Indiana Trial Rules are not applicable. In
any event, even under the applicable Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 60(b), Mathews’
motion must be denied. Mathews has failed to set forth any evidence in support of her motion.
Her motion consists of segments of varying court rules from various jurisdictions and general
commentary, none of which are applicable to this case.
Mathews makes a jumbled claim relating to the defendants’ motion for extension of time
to file motion for summary judgment, which was granted on November 19, 2012. Mathews
asserts that she did not know that the defendants’ motion had been granted. However, the
record is clear that the motion for summary judgment was filed on December 19, 2012, and that
a notice of the motion was filed on this same date, advising Mathews that the motion was filed
and that she had an obligation to respond. Mathews responded by filing a motion to strike the
motion for summary judgment, which motion was denied. Clearly, even if Mathews was
somehow unaware that the court had granted the defendants’ motion for extension of time,
Mathews was on notice that the summary judgment motion had been filed on December 19,
2012, and Mathews, in fact, responded. If Mathews was confused at that point, or unsure of her
duty to fully respond to that motion, she could have easily checked with the Clerk’s Office and
inquired as to the status of the case. Additionally, she could have visited the Clerk’s Office in
person and reviewed the docket. The court is not under an obligation to ensure that every Order
issued by the court is actually received and read by the parties. Orders are mailed to the address
on record and that is the end of the matter as far as the Court is concerned. Mathews has no
basis to assert a claim pursuant to Rule 60(b) and her motion will be denied.
Conclusion
On the basis of the foregoing, Mathews’ motion to correct [DE97] is hereby DENIED.
Entered: August 9, 2013.
s/ William C. Lee
William C. Lee, Judge
United States District Court
2
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?