PETERSON v. MATLOCK et al

Filing 220

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER denying 216 MOTION for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 11/29/2017. (mmh)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
BRADLEY C. PETERSON,
Plaintiff,

I
I
I
Civ. No. 11-2594

v.
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER

ALBERT MATLOCK, REGINALD
LEWIS, DAMIEN ALBANESE,
SERGEANT KEVIN NEWSOME,
LIEUTENANT STEPHEN ALAIMO,
SERGEANT MARK PERKINS,
ADMINISTRATOR CHRISTOPHER
HOLMES, CHRISTOPHER ISRAEL,
NATHAN GUNDY, DANIEL POWELL,
M. LASHLEY, J. BARNES, III, P.
FISHER,
Defendants.
THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.

This matter having come before the Court upon Plaintiff's motion for partial relief from
the August 30, 2016 summary judgment order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a),
filed November 27, 2017 (ECF No. 216); and the Court having decided this motion based upon
the written submission of Plaintiff pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1 (b);

IT APPEARING THAT Judge Freda Wolfson granted Defendants' motion for swnmary
judgment in part and denied the motion in part on August 30, 2016 (ECF No. 152); and it further
APPEARING THAT Plaintiff moves for relief as to Judge Wolfson' s entry of judgment
for Defendants on Plaintiff's claims for conspiracy under both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the NJCRA,
and supervisory liability as to Defendant Lt. Alaimo (ECF No. 215); and it further

1

..

,/

'

APPEARING THAT Plaintiff does not present cognizable grounds upon which the-court
can grant relief, Malik v. Hannah, 2012 WL 359747, at *5-*6 (D.N.J. Feb. 6, 2012), because
relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(a) "is limited to the correction of' clerical mistakes"'
that are "mechanical in nature" and should not involve alleged errors of substantive judgment by
the Court or change the substantive rights of the parties, Pfizer Inc. v. Uprichard, 422 F.3d 124,
129-30 (3d Cir. 2005) (internal citation omitted); and it further
APPEARING THAT although there are no facial time constraints for a motion for relief
under Rule 60(a), cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c), the Court takes note that the timeframe in which
Plaintiff has filed this motion, nearly 17 months after Judge Wolfson's Opinion and Order (ECF
Nos. 152, 153), is unreasonable and will cause significant prejudice to Defendants; and it further
APPEARING THAT Plaintiff docketed this motion as a motion for reconsideration, and
while a motion for reconsideration concerns relief under Rule 59(e), ifthe Court construes this
filing as such, Plaintiff has filed a patently untimely motion that the Court cannot consider under
Local Civil Rule 7.1 (i) (requiring moving parties 'to submit a motion for reconsideration within
14 days of the entry of 7.~et or judgment ~n the original motion);
.

ITISonthis'b1_1iayof ~~017,
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

2