ANDERSON v. PURITT et al

Filing 44

ORDER signed by JUDGE N. C. TILLEY, JR on 3/25/2013 adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation [Doc. #40]; that Plaintiff's Rule 60(b)(6) Motion 34 is denied. (Sheets, Jamie)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
JEROME ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
A.K. PRUITT and SUSAN HORAN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:10CV553

ORDER
On February 22, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation was filed and notice was served on the parties pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636. Plaintiff filed objections [Doc. #42] and Defendants filed a
Response [Doc. #43]. The Court has reviewed the Objections and Response
de novo and finds they do not change the substance of the United States
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation [Doc. #40], which is affirmed and
adopted. To the extent Plaintiff in his objections now cites to North Carolina
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), that rule would not be implicated since the Order
and Judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s prior suit (1:08CV246) did not purport to
alter the statute of limitations or otherwise specify that a new action based on
the same claim could be instituted within a year.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(6) Motion is
denied.
This the 25th of March, 2013.

/s/ N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge

2