Jennings v. Mohr et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS denying 10 MOTION Motion Requesting the court to find that the Defendant failed to comply with proper diagnoses of their serious Medical Needs. Objections to R&R due by 9/21/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 9/7/2017. (ew)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
GREGORY ALLEN JENNINGS,
Civil Action 2:17-cv-248
Judge George C. Smith
Magistrate Judge Jolson
GARY MOHR, et al.,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter, filed by pro se prisoner Plaintiff Gregory Allen Jennings, was terminated on
July 13, 2017, when the Court adopted the Undersigned’s Report and Recommendation
recommending that Mr. Jennings’s Complaint be dismissed. (See Docs. 8, 9). On July 20, 2017,
Mr. Jennings filed a Motion which appears to seek reconsideration of his Eighth Amendment
claim for deliberate indifference to his medical needs. (Doc. 10) (appearing on this Court’s
docket as a “Motion Requesting the court to find that the Defendant failed to comply with proper
diagnoses of their serious Medical Needs”).
On July 28, 2017, this Court received a letter from Mr. Jennings. (Doc. 11). At the
outset, Mr. Jennings explains that he does not understand the Court’s disposition of this case and
appears to seek clarification. (Id. at 1). Mr. Jennings then explains that he does not feel capable
of representing himself in this action and going forward he will consider this case over. (Id. at
2). Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Mr. Jennings no longer intends to pursue
his Motion. And even if he did, the Motion is without merit.
Whether Mr. Jennings’s Motion is construed as a Rule 59(e) Motion to alter or amend the
Court’s July 13, 2017 ruling, or as a Rule 60(b) request for relief from that ruling, the Motion
fails to satisfy the stringent standards that warrant reconsideration. See Gencorp, Inc. v. Am. Int'l
Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999) (stating that a court may grant a motion to
amend or alter judgment under Rule 59(e) to correct a clear error of law, to address newly
discovered evidence, to address an interviewing change in controlling law, or to prevent manifest
injustice); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (stating that a court may relieve a party from a final judgment or
order where the party shows: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2)
newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in
time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud ..., misrepresentation, or misconduct by
an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or
discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief”). Even
construing Mr. Jennings’s Motion liberally, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), he
appears to be renewing arguments that were already considered and rejected by the Court, which
is not the function of a motion to reconsider. See McConocha v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Mut.
of Ohio, 930 F. Supp. 1182, 1884 (N.D. Ohio 1996).
Based upon the foregoing, it is
RECOMMENDED that Mr. Jennings’s Motion be DENIED.
Procedure on Objections to Report and Recommendation
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those
specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with
supporting authority for the objection(s).
A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further
evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C.
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report
and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of
the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: September 7, 2017
/s/Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?