Ellison v. JP Morgan Chase Bank et al

Filing 37

ORDER denying 34 Motion For Appealable Decision. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PHILIP W. ELLISON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 13-13121
v.
Hon. Patrick J. Duggan
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, DONALD
P KING, TROTT & TROTT, DOUGLAS
P. SHEPHERD, and ANTHONY M.
WICKERSHAM,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
APPEALABLE DECISION
On July 19, 2012, pro se Plaintiff Philip Ellison initiated this action against
five defendants by filing a seven-count complaint with this Court. In August of
2013, the various defendants sought dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 56. After carefully reviewing
Plaintiff’s Complaint, the various motions filed by defendants (as well as a motion
for default judgment filed by Plaintiff), and Plaintiff’s responses to those motions,
the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety against all defendants on
October 31, 2013.1 (ECF No. 29.) That same day, the Court entered Judgment
1

Some of Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed with prejudice while others were
dismissed without prejudice. See Oct. 31, 2013 Op. & Order, ECF No. 29; J. ECF
No. 30. The Court also denied Plaintiff’s default judgment motion. See Oct. 31,
2013 Op. & Order, ECF No. 29; J. ECF No. 30.

dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 30.) On January 14, 2014, the Court
denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 33.)
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appealable Order filed
on January 29, 2014 “pursuant to” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and Civil
Rules 3(a)(iii) and 53 (D)(3)(b).2 (ECF No. 34.) Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s
perplexing citation to Rule 11 and other non-existent civil rules, the remedy
Plaintiff seeks (“the ability to seek a remedy in a higher court[]”) was available as
soon as this Court entered Judgment on October 31, 2013. This Judgment is a
final, and therefore appealable, order. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appealable Order,
therefore, is moot.

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appealable Decision (ECF No.
34) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Dated: March 3, 2014
s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:

2

Civil Rules 3(a)(iii) and 53(D)(3)(b) do not appear in the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Eastern District of Michigan Local Rules, the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure, the Sixth Circuit Rules of Appellate Procedure, or the Sixth
Circuit’s Internal Operating Procedures.
2

Philip W Ellison
20078 Ballantrae Drive
Macomb, MI 48044
Philip W Ellison
20836 Hall Road, # 278
Clinton Township, MI 48038
Laura Baucus, Esq.
Samantha L. Walls, Esq.
Josie L. Lewis, Esq.
Raechel M. Badalamenti, Esq.
Robert J. Morris, Esq.
John A. Schapka, Esq.

3