Tolliver v. Noble et al

Filing 149

OPINION AND ORDER denying ECF No. 146 Plaintiff's Motion for Telephone Conference; DENYING ECF No. 147 Plaintiff's Renewed Objection to Magistrate's Position on Declaratory Judgment Issues Contained in Complaint and GRANTING ECF N o. granting 148 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion. Signed by Judge Edmund A. Sargus on 9/7/2021. (cmw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Case: 2:16-cv-01020-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 149 Filed: 09/07/21 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 973

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
KEVIN A. TOLLIVER,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Case No. 2:16-cv-1020
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Chief Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

WARDEN NOBLE,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on (A) Plaintiff’s Motion for a Telephone Conference
(ECF No. 146), and his Renewed Objection to Magistrate’s Position on Declaratory Judgment
Issues Contained in Complaint (ECF No. 147); and (B) Defendant’s Motion for an Extension of
Time to File Dispositive Motion (ECF No. 148). For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES
Plaintiffs’ motions and GRANTS Defendant’s motion.
(A)

Plaintiff’s Motions
After years of litigation before this Court and the Sixth Circuit, Plaintiff has remaining in

this case a claim of retaliation against Defendant. Discovery on that claim is complete, and
dispositive motions, and trial have been scheduled. (ECF No. 143.)
In Plaintiff’s Renewed Objection to Magistrate’s Position on Declaratory Judgment
Issues Contained in Complaint, he asks for reconsideration of this Court’s adoption of a Report
and Recommendation that overruled Plaintiff’s objection to the dismissal of his declaratory
judgment action. Plaintiff’s request consists in its totality to the following:
Pursuant to some of the defendant’s answers in discovery it is clear that the
declaratory judgment issued challenging the polices of the ODRC must proceed as

Case: 2:16-cv-01020-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 149 Filed: 09/07/21 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 974

argued in the complaint (doc 30) and plaintiff cannot be forced to abandon them
now without creating hardship upon all parties.
(ECF No. 147) (citing Compl.).
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly address motions for
reconsideration requests, the authority for a district court to hear such motions is found in both
the common law and in Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rodriguez v. Tenn.
Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89 Fed. Appx. 949, 959 (6th Cir. 2004). The Court here finds
no sufficient reason to reconsider its previous order. Plaintiff simply disagrees with this Court’s
decision. Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for reconsideration. (ECF No. 147.)
In Plaintiff’s Request for a Telephone Status Conference on Discovery and Objections,
Plaintiff “renews his objection to the Court’s attempts to restrict his case exclusively to claims of
retaliation.” (ECF No. 146 at 1.) Plaintiff further states that “it is a necessity to get subsequent
discovery from” third parties to support his dismissed claim. Id. The Court’s decision denying
Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration negates any reason to review any discovery requests to
support Plaintiff’s declaratory judgement action. Consequently, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s
request for a telephone conference.
B.

Defendant’s Motion
Defendant requests additional time to file its dispositive motion and offers good cause for

the request. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 (a court may enlarge the period of time to perform an act if
the request is made before the expiration of time originally prescribed when good cause is
shown). This Court, therefore, GRANTS Defendant’s motion. Defendant shall file its motion on
or before September 20, 2021. No further extensions will be granted.

2

Case: 2:16-cv-01020-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 149 Filed: 09/07/21 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 975

C.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for a Telephone

Conference (ECF No. 146), DENIES Plaintiff’s Renewed Objection to Magistrate’s Position on
Declaratory Judgment Issues Contained in Complaint (ECF No. 147), and GRANTS
Defendant’s Motion for an Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion (ECF No. 148).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

9/7/2021
DATE

s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3