Daniel v. T & M Protection Resources LLC et al

Filing 215

ORDER denying 214 Motion for Reconsideration re 186 Clerk's Judgment. The Court, however, again finds no reason to vacate the decisions or judgment in this case, and denies this motion, for the reasons stated in its July 27, 2018 denial of Daniel's motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 195, and its June 22, 2020 denial of Daniel's Rule 60(b) motion, Dkt. 212. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order to Daniel. For avoidance of doubt, this case remains closed. SO ORDERED., (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 7/9/20) (yv) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

Case 1:13-cv-04384-PAE-HBP Document 215 Filed 07/09/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
OTIS A. DANIEL,
Plaintiff,

13 Civ. 4384 (PAE)

-vORDER
T&M PROTECTION RESOURCES LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:
The Court has received two filings from pro se plaintiff Otis Daniel. The first is a letter
alleging that his pro bono attorneys acted unethically and committed malpractice in representing
him. Dkt. 213. It is unclear what relief Daniel seeks with this letter. In any event, having
reviewed Daniel’s letter in detail, the Court is unaware of any evidence or indication of
malpractice. Quite the contrary: Having presided over Daniel’s case including trial, the Court’s
assessment is that Daniel’s counsel were uncommonly vigorous, dedicated, and effective.
Daniel has also submitted a motion to vacate the decision and judgment in this case.
Dkt. 214. In support, Daniel cites his July 25, 2018 motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 193, and to
the above letter complaining of misconduct by his counsel, Dkt. 213, in addition to the
complaints, his deposition testimony, and the trial transcript. Daniel also recently filed a motion
for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Dkt. 212. The Court, however, again
finds no reason to vacate the decisions or judgment in this case, and denies this motion, for the
reasons stated in its July 27, 2018 denial of Daniel’s motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 195, and its
June 22, 2020 denial of Daniel’s Rule 60(b) motion, Dkt. 212.

Case 1:13-cv-04384-PAE-HBP Document 215 Filed 07/09/20 Page 2 of 2

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order to Daniel. For
avoidance of doubt, this case remains closed.
SO ORDERED.

PaJA.�

______________________________
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER
United States District Judge
Dated: July 9, 2020
New York, New York

2