Newsome v. Erwin, et al

Filing 29

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - It is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff Newsomes Motions to Reopen the Case, to Appoint Counsel, and for Settlement (Doc. Nos. 26, 27, 28) be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 11/25/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 11/6/2013. (kpf1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
FRANK NEWSOME,
Plaintiff,

-

vs

:

Case No. 3:01-cv-281
District Judge Walter Herbert Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-

JERRY ERWIN, et al.,

Defendants.

:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This case, brought pro se by Plaintiff Frank Newsome, is before the Court on Newsome’s
Motions to Reopen the Case, to Appoint Counsel, and for Settlement (Doc. Nos. 26, 27, 28). As
post-judgment motions they are deemed referred to the Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(3), requiring a report and recommendations.
Final judgment was entered in this case on June 27, 2002 (Doc. Nos. 23, 24) and
Newsome took no appeal, perhaps because the Sixth Circuit has previously imposed monetary
sanctions on him for a frivolous appeal.
In the instant Motion to Reopen, Newsome cites no facts which have not been previously
and repeatedly litigated in this Court. Newsome is under a permanent injunction not to file new
cases without paying the required filing fee, obtaining representation by an attorney, or obtaining
the advance permission of the Chief Judge. The instant Motion is, as the Magistrate Judge said

1

of Newsome’s parallel Motion in another case, a “transparent attempt … to obtain access to this
Court without [complying with that injunction].” (Case No. 3:00-cv-372, Report, Doc. No. 49,
PageID 31.) The Motion to Reopen and the ancillary motion to appoint counsel should be
denied.
Newsome’s Motion for Settlement is blatantly extortionate.

It reads in its entirety

“Plaintiff moves this court for a settlement in the amount of 200,000 that it will cause it to stop.”
(Doc. No. 28, PageID 8.) Long experience with Newsome persuades the Magistrate Judge that
nothing will “cause it to stop” other than monetary sanctions, which have successfully kept
Newsome from taking frivolous appeals to the Sixth Circuit. The Motion for Settlement should
be stricken and Newsome warned that further filings of that nature or which violate the
injunction will be met with monetary sanctions.
November 6, 2013.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this Report
and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to seventeen
days because this Report is being served by one of the methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F). Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected
to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendations are based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party=s objections
within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985).

1

Filings from before January 2012 have not been digitized.

2