Brown v. Brody et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (filing no. 22 ), liberally construed as a Motion for Relief Under Rule 60(b), is denied. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (AOA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CORNELIUS BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
KIRSTIN BRODY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:11CV3217

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, which
the court liberally construes as a Motion for Relief Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b). (Filing No. 22.)
On January 10, 2012, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint and entered
Judgment against him. (Filing Nos. 8 and 9.) Liberally construed, Plaintiff seeks
relief from the court’s Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(b)(6). (Filing No.
22.) Rule 60(b)(6) “grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a
final judgment ‘upon such terms as are just,’ provided that the motion is made within
a reasonable time and is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in
clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).” Liljeberg v. Health Serv. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S.
847, 863 (1988). However “[r]elief is available under Rule 60(b)(6) only where
exceptional circumstances have denied the moving party a full and fair opportunity
to litigate his claim and have prevented the moving party from receiving adequate
redress.” Harley v. Zoesch, 413 F.3d 866, 871 (8th Cir. 2005).
The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion. Plaintiff has not set forth
any “exceptional circumstances” that prevented him from fully litigating his claims
or receiving adequate redress. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration,
liberally construed as a Motion for Relief Under Rule 60(b), is denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
(filing no. 22), liberally construed as a Motion for Relief Under Rule 60(b), is denied.
DATED this 8th day of August, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
2