Reo v. Lindstedt
Filing
117
Opinion and Order. The Court determines that Defendant Martin Lindstedt has not shown that reconsideration of, or relief from the Court's March 23, 2021 Opinion and Order (ECF DKT # 90 ) dismissing his claims against Defendant Kyle Bristo w is warranted. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation (ECF DKT # 110 ) is ADOPTED and the Motion (ECF DKT # 97 ) of Defendant Martin Lindstedt to Alter or Amend under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or for Relief from Judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) is DENIED. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 11/18/21. (S,HR)
Case: 1:19-cv-02589-CAB Doc #: 117 Filed: 11/18/21 1 of 7. PageID #: 1198
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
BRYAN ANTHONY REO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MARTIN LINDSTEDT,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:19CV2589
SENIOR JUDGE
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, SR. J.:
This matter comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report &
Recommendation (ECF DKT #110) recommending that the Court deny the Motion (ECF
DKT #97) of Defendant Martin Lindstedt to Alter or Amend under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or for
Relief from Judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), directed at the Court’s Opinion and Order
(ECF DKT #90) granting Defendant Kyle Bristow’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation and denies Defendant’s Motion (ECF DKT #97).
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Bryan Anthony Reo is an Ohio resident who is authorized to practice law in
Case: 1:19-cv-02589-CAB Doc #: 117 Filed: 11/18/21 2 of 7. PageID #: 1199
Ohio. Defendant is a pastor at the Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of
Missouri located in Granby, Missouri. Defendant is representing himself in this action.
Plaintiff filed a previous lawsuit for Defamation per se and False Light Invasion of Privacy
against Defendant and his church in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas. Judge
Patrick Condon presided over the Lake County trial. In June 2019, a jury awarded Plaintiff
$105,000 in damages against Defendant and his church. Defendant has appealed that
judgment.
In August 2019, statements accusing Plaintiff of bribing a Missouri state judge with
sexual favors appeared on a white nationalist website. In September, more statements were
published accusing Plaintiff of an incestuous relationship with his father and of having
an extramarital affair. In response to the publication of these statements, Plaintiff filed
two more actions against Defendant in state court, alleging Common Law Defamation, False
Light and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Plaintiff’s wife and father filed two
separate state court actions asserting the same claims. Defendant subsequently removed all
four cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on federal question and diversity grounds. Defendant
contends that these four cases represent a coordinated effort by Plaintiff, his family and his
lawyers to “steal” Defendant’s 1800-acre property in South Dakota.
Defendant’s Amended Answer (ECF DKT #17) alleges multiple “Counterclaims” and
alleges that Defendant Kyle Bristow: (1) engaged in a civil conspiracy with Plaintiff and
others to bring frivolous lawsuits against Lindstedt and his Missouri church in violation of his
First Amendment rights and to steal his South Dakota land inheritance; and (2) defamed
Lindstedt by calling him a “child molester” or “pedophile” in court filings and
-2-
Case: 1:19-cv-02589-CAB Doc #: 117 Filed: 11/18/21 3 of 7. PageID #: 1200
correspondence.
In the Opinion and Order (ECF DKT #90), the Court found that Defendant’s
“Counterclaim” against Defendant Bristow failed to satisfy Ohio’s Long-Arm Statute
(R..C. § 2307.382) and the requirements of Due Process. The Court further found: that
Bristow did not purposefully avail himself of the privilege of acting in Ohio; that none of
Defendant’s claims arise out of Bristow’s practice of law in Ohio; and that other states have a
greater interest since Bristow is a Michigan resident, Defendant is a Missouri resident and the
alleged injuries occurred in both Missouri and South Dakota.
In Defendant’s Motion for Relief under Rules 59(e) and 60(b), he repeats his previous
assertions about Bristow’s alleged actions and objects to the Court’s Order excusing Bristow
from a counter-suit. In addition, in his Objection, Defendant disparages the federal and state
courts, the Magistrate Judge and the District Judge. He calls the courts “corrupt” and
“tyrannical” and contends that they are without legitimate jurisdiction other than that made up
by their own decisions and rules. (ECF DKT #112 at 7). He threatens the “chernobylization”
of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant and insists that Northeastern Ohio “must and shall be
destroyed.” (ECF DKT #112 at 6).
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Standard of Review
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), the District Court shall
review de novo any finding or recommendation of the Magistrate’s Report and
Recommendation to which specific objection is made. A party who fails to file an objection
waives the right to appeal. U.S. v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981). In Thomas v.
-3-
Case: 1:19-cv-02589-CAB Doc #: 117 Filed: 11/18/21 4 of 7. PageID #: 1201
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985), the Supreme Court held: “[i]t does not appear that Congress
intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge’s factual or legal conclusions,
under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”
Local Rule 72.3(b) recites in pertinent part:
The District Judge to whom the case was assigned shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
Magistrate Judge.
Put another way, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3 authorize the District Court
Judge to address objections by conducting a de novo review of relevant evidence in the record
before the Magistrate Judge.
The rules governing objections to magistrate judges’ reports require parties to
specifically object to the problematic aspects of the report and recommendation. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) & (b)(3); LR 72.3(b). A party’s failure to do so
could result in the loss of appellate rights. Andres v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 733 F. App’x 241,
244 (6th Cir. Apr. 30, 2018). Overly-generalized objections do not satisfy the
specific-objection requirement. Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir. 2006)
abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). Neither does the
regurgitation of the same merit brief before the magistrate judge constitute a sufficient
objection. Andres, 733 F. App’x at 243.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)
A party may obtain relief from judgment for various reasons including mistake, newly
discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, or a satisfaction or release from a prior
-4-
Case: 1:19-cv-02589-CAB Doc #: 117 Filed: 11/18/21 5 of 7. PageID #: 1202
judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1–5). Additionally, a party is entitled to relief upon a
showing of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. See Fed.R.Civ.P.60(b)(6). A Rule
60(b) motion is properly denied where the movant attempts to use such a motion to relitigate
the merits of a claim and the allegations are unsubstantiated. Barnes v. Clinton, 57 F. App’x
240, 241 (6th Cir. 2003).
Motion to Reconsider
“District courts possess the authority and discretion to reconsider and modify
interlocutory judgments any time before final judgment.” Rodriguez v. Tenn. Laborers
Health & Welfare Fund, 89 F. App’x 949, 952 (6th Cir. 2004). See also Moses H. Cone
Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 12 (1983) (“every order short of a final
decree is subject to reopening at the discretion of the district judge”). “District courts have
authority both under common law and Rule 54(b) to reconsider interlocutory orders and to
reopen any part of a case before entry of final judgment.” Rodriguez, 89 F. App’x at 959.
However, reconsideration is disfavored:
Although motions to reconsider are not ill-founded step-children of
the federal court’s procedural arsenal, they are extraordinary in
nature and, because they run contrary to notions of finality and
repose, should be discouraged. To be sure, a court can always take
a second look at a prior decision; but it need not and should not do
so in the vast majority of instances, especially where such motions
merely restyle or re-hash the initial issues.
McConocha v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Mutual of Ohio, 930 F.Supp. 1182, 1184
(N.D.Ohio 1996) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Motions for reconsideration “serve a limited purpose and should be granted for one of
three reasons: (1) because of an intervening change in controlling law; (2) because evidence
-5-
Case: 1:19-cv-02589-CAB Doc #: 117 Filed: 11/18/21 6 of 7. PageID #: 1203
not previously available has become available; or (3) because it is necessary to correct a clear
error of law or preventing manifest injustice.” Boler Co. v. Watson & Chalin Mfg. Inc., 372
F.Supp.2d 1013, 1025 (N.D.Ohio 2004), quoting General Truck Drivers, Local No. 957 v.
Dayton Newspapers, Inc., 190 F.3d 434, 445 (6th Cir. 1999) (Clay, J. dissenting), cert.
denied, 528 U.S. 1137 (2000).
Neither in his Motion for Relief nor in his Objection has Defendant even addressed
the Court’s legal determination that personal jurisdiction over Kyle Bristow is lacking.
Defendant has not demonstrated a change in applicable law, newly-available evidence, clear
legal error or the need to prevent manifest injustice. Rather, he repeats the accusations set out
in his Answer and his severe critiques of the American judicial system. Regardless of
whether Defendant couches his arguments as a prayer for reconsideration or for relief from
judgment, he cannot legitimately use either vehicle to relitigate his case. O’Connel v. Miller,
8 F. App’x 434, 435 (6th Cir. 2001) (“A Rule 60(b) motion must be denied if . . . it is merely
an attempt to relitigate the case.”); Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146
F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998) (stating that a Rule 59(e) motion “is not an opportunity to
re-argue a case”); McConocha, supra at 1184.
The Court carefully considered and rejected Defendant’s contentions protesting the
dismissal of his claims against Bristow. The Court will not tolerate the scandalous,
scurrilous, vitriol-laced and threatening language used by Defendant in his Motion (ECF DKT
#97) and in his Objection (ECF DKT #112). The Court refuses to treat Defendant’s filing as
a legitimate objection warranting the Court’s consideration.
-6-
Case: 1:19-cv-02589-CAB Doc #: 117 Filed: 11/18/21 7 of 7. PageID #: 1204
III. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court determines that Defendant Martin Lindstedt has not
shown that reconsideration of, or relief from the Court’s March 23, 2021 Opinion and Order
(ECF DKT #90) dismissing his claims against Defendant Kyle Bristow is warranted.
Therefore, the Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation (ECF DKT #110) is
ADOPTED and the Motion (ECF DKT #97) of Defendant Martin Lindstedt to Alter or
Amend under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or for Relief from Judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: November 18, 2021
s/Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
Senior United States District Judge
-7-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?