Harris v. Pinkney's

Filing 8

Memorandum Opinion and Order. Mr. Harris' most recent reiteration of his dissatisfaction with the result offers no relevant information that would alter that outcome. Plaintiff's motions (ECF # 6 , 7 ) are, therefore, DENIED. Judge Donald C. Nugent on 6/16/2022. (M,S)

Case: 1:18-cv-00569-DCN Doc #: 8 Filed: 06/16/22 1 of 1. PageID #: 81

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

WALTER HARRJS,
Plaintiff,
V.

CUYAHOGA COUNTY SHERJFF,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO.

1:18 CV569

JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Water Harris' Motion for PostJudgment 42 U.S.C. §1983 Civil Rights Complaint, and Motion to Relate Back to Timely Filed
42 U.S.C. §1983 Complaint and/or Reopen. (ECF #6, 7). The arguments presented by the Mr.
Harris do not provide any basis for relief under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(b), or reason to re-open the
case in order to add an additional defendant. There is no information provided in the Plaintiffs
post-judgment motions that was not raised and considered by the Court in the prior proceedings.
He presented his legal and factual asse1iions to the Court in his original Complaint, and those
assertions did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. All of the facts and legal
principles underlying his claims have been considered and addressed. Mr. Harris' most recent
reiteration of his dissatisfaction with the result offers no relevant information that would alter
that outcome. Plaintiffs motions (ECF #6, 7) are, therefore, DENIED.

United States District Ji