Doe v. Selsky et al

Filing 48

ORDER denying plaintiff's 47 Motion to Vacate the judgment. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 6/12/12. (EMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________________
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
08-CV-6199L
v.
DONALD SELSKY, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________________________
Plaintiff moves (Dkt. #47), pro se, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) to vacate a prior decision
of this Court. By order (Dkt. #45), this Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment
and dismissed the complaint.
Plaintiff fails to set forth with specificity which order of the Court he wishes the Court to
reconsider and vacate. The bulk of plaintiff’s application seems to relate to the Court’s failure to
assign plaintiff counsel. It does not appear, however, that plaintiff ever requested counsel. The only
docket entry referenced by plaintiff is Docket #30 where plaintiff requested an extension to reply to
the defendants’ motion. Plaintiff did make a reference that he was a lay person but there was no
request for appointment of counsel. In light of the above, there is no basis to vacate any prior order
of this Court.

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. #47) to vacate the judgment is in all respects denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________________________
DAVID G. LARIMER
United States District Judge
Dated: Rochester, New York
June 12, 2012.

-2-