HUNTER v. SHERIFF WILLIAMS et al

Filing 55

ORDER denying 54 Motion to Vacate 48 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment and Declaratory Judgment and 49 Closed Judgment. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/22/2011. (SMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

MICHAEL HOWARD HUNTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHERIFF WILLIAMS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Written
Opinion
Under the E-Government Act and
Judicial Conference policy

No. 3:10-cv-0101-JMS-WGH

Order Denying Motion to Vacate
Motions require reasons. Rule 7(b)(1) states in relevant part, "An application to the
court for an order shall be made by motion which, unless made during a hearing or trial,
shall be made in writing, shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set
forth the relief or order sought." Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b)(1). In the Seventh Circuit,
"particularity" has been interpreted to mean "reasonable specification." Talano v.
Northwestern Med. Faculty Found., Inc., 273 F.3d 757, 760 (7th Cir. 2001).
Because the motion to vacate [54] lacks a coherent statement of reasonable
specification for the relief sought, that motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

09/22/2011
Date: _________________

Distribution:
Michael Hunter
3500 Harlan Ave
Evansville, IN 47711
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana