Curry, Jr. v. City of Tupelo Police Department

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order re 12 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy Percy on 8/24/21. (cb)

Case: 1:20-cv-00177-RP Doc #: 14 Filed: 08/24/21 1 of 1 PageID #: 46

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
JAMES CURRY, JR.

PLAINTIFF

v.

No. 1:20CV177-RP

CITY OF TUPELO POLICE DEPARTMENT

DEFENDANT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER
This matter comes before the court on the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the
court’s order dismissing the instant case for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. The court interprets the motion, using the liberal standard for pro se litigants set forth
in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), as a motion for relief from a judgment or order under
FED. R. CIV. P. 60. An order granting relief under Rule 60 must be based upon: (1) clerical
mistakes, (2) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, (3) newly discovered
evidence, (4) fraud or other misconduct of an adverse party, (5) a void judgment, or (6) any other
reason justifying relief from the operation of the order. Id. The plaintiff merely restates the
arguments the court rejected in dismissing the case. As such, the plaintiff has neither asserted
nor proven any of the specific justifications for relief from an order permitted under Rule 60. In
addition, the plaintiff has not presented “any other reason justifying relief from the operation” of
the judgment. As such, the plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this, the 24th day of August, 2021.
/s/ Roy Percy
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE