Perotti v. Marlberry

Filing 191

ORDER granting in part 188 Motion for Relief from Judgment, 189 Motion to Amend/Correct, 190 Motion; and OVERRULING Objections. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHN PEROTTI,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 05-60172
v.
HELEN MARLBERRY, et al.,

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

Defendants.
__________________________/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT IN PART AND OVERRULING OBJECTIONS
TO MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court are three motions for relief from judgment filed by Plaintiff as well as
objections to Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen’s February 20, 2013 report and
recommendation. The court adopted Magistrate Judge Whalen’s report and recommendation on
March 22, 2013, after no objections were filed by that date. The court granted Plaintiff an
extension of time until March 15, 2013, to file his objections. Plaintiff’s objections were datestamped on March 26, 2013. However, Plaintiff states that he submitted his objections to the
prison mail room staff on March 15, 2013, for mailing. The court notes that Plaintiff’s certificate
of service for his objections is dated March 15, 2013, thus rendering the objections timely. See
Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 925 (6th Cir. 2008) (“The defendants’ focus on the court's date
stamp overlooks the ‘prison mailbox rule.’ Under this relaxed filing standard, a pro se prisoner’s
complaint is deemed filed when it is handed over to prison officials for mailing to the court.”).
Accordingly, the court will consider Plaintiff’s objections as they relate to the
magistrate’s February 20, 2013 report and recommendation. The magistrate judge recommended

that the remaining defendants (those not subject to Plaintiff’s request for voluntary dismissal) be
dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The remaining defendants are all residents of Ohio
and the acts complained of occurred in Ohio. Although Plaintiff states that certain U.S. Marshal
defendants “caused him harm in the state of Michigan” and “transported [him] to Michigan,”
such vague and general allegations fall well short of the facts necessary to establish personal
jurisdiction over these defendants in Michigan. Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that
personal jurisdiction exists. See Brunner v. Hampson, 441 F.3d 457, 462 (6th Cir. 2006).
Viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, they are insufficient to establish
personal jurisdiction over Defendants.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for relief from
judgment (Docket Nos. 188, 189, and 190) are GRANTED IN PART, to the extent Plaintiff’s
objections are deemed timely and were considered by the court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate’s report and
recommendation are OVERRULED.

s/John Corbett O'Meara
United States District Judge
Date: June 5, 2013

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of
record on this date, June 5, 2013, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

-2-