Libretti v. Woodson

Filing 42

Memorandum Opinion and Order denying plaintiff's 40 Motion to alter/amend the judgment dismissing the complaint for reasons accurately and succinctly stated in the opposition brief. Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 1/27/2014. (S,J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JOSEPH V. LIBRETTI, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STEVEN WOODSON,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:13 CV 932
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Before the Court is “Plaintiff’s Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to Alter or
Amend this Court’s December 17, 2013 Order and Judgment Dismissing the Complaint.” (Doc
#: 40 (“Motion”)). The Court has reviewed the Motion and Defendant’s Brief in Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion etc. (Doc #: 41 (“Opposition Brief.”)). The Court notes only that a review of
the docket in this case shows that Plaintiff has needlessly taxed public and private resources in
litigating this case.1 That practice in the district court ends today. Accordingly, for the reasons
accurately and succinctly stated in the Opposition Brief, the Court DENIES the Motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Dan A. Polster January 27, 2014
Dan Aaron Polster
United States District Judge

1

See, for example, Plaintiff’s attempt to file five amended complaints and frivolous
motions such as “Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition
to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss” (Doc #: 36).