Fields v. Wilhite et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying 9 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Gerald Fields. Signed by Judge Sarah D. Morrison on 6/5/24. (sem)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION GERALD FIELDS, Plaintiff, : Case No. 2:23-cv-3755 Judge Sarah D. Morrison Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers v. DETECTIVE WILHITE, et al., : Defendants. ORDER This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff Gerald Fields’s Motion for Reconsideration (Mot., ECF No. 9). On March 18, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R, ECF No. 5) recommending that this Court dismiss Mr. Fields’s claims. On May 20, 2024, the Court adopted and affirmed the R&R (Order, ECF No. 7). Mr. Fields now asks the Court to reconsider its Order and permit his claims to proceed. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit litigants to file a motion to alter or amend a judgment within 28 days after the judgment is entered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Motions for reconsideration that are brought within this 28-day window are generally considered to have been brought pursuant to Rule 59(e). See In re Greektown Holdings, LLC, 728 F.3d 567, 574 (6th Cir. 2013). The Court construes Mr. Field’s Motion as one to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e). “A court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend if there is: (1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.” Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999)). A Rule 59(e) motion is “seldom granted because it contradicts notions of finality and repose.” Gascho v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, 918 F. Supp. 2d 708, 714 (S.D. Ohio 2013) (Smith, J.). “A motion under Rule 59(e) is not an opportunity to re-argue a case.” Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998). In his Motion, Mr. Fields contends that certain of his claims are not (and “can never be”) time barred pursuant to a two-year statute of limitations because the replevin action became final on November 14, 2023. (Mot., PAGEID # 94.) Both the Magistrate Judge and the Court previously considered and addressed this argument—Mr. Fields may not use his Motion to re-litigate issues. Similarly, Mr. Fields dedicates the remainder of his Motion to re-arguing the merits of his case, but he does not establish the existence of an intervening change in controlling law or newly available evidence, nor does he demonstrate a need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. As a result, the Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 9) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Sarah D. Morrison SARAH D. MORRISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?