Easterling v. Crawford

Filing 49

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - It is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's fourth Motion for Relief from Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(ECF No. 48) be denied. Objections to R&R due by 1/22/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 1/4/2016. (kpf)(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
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
WARREN EASTERLING,
Plaintiff,

:

Case No. 3:14-cv-226
District Judge Walter Herbert Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-vs:
JUDGE DALE CRAWFORD,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM JUDGMENT
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s fourth Motion for Relief from Judgment under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(ECF No. 48). As a post-judgment motion, it is deemed referred to the
undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), requiring a report and recommendations.
The judgment from which relief is sought was entered March 2, 2015 (ECF No. 34).
Easterling brings his Motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) which provides “[o]n motion
and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding for the following reasons: . . .(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic
or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.” As in his prior Motions,
Easterling does not claim any fraud on the Court by an opposing party, however, but asserts he
“will not accept any entry from this court in the above referenced matter due to Judge Walter
Rice, accompanied by Magistrate Merz having committed criminal acts against the Plaintiff
which include obstruction of justice and deprivation of rights where these acts confirm the
1

Plaintiff’s right to an independent, unbiased disinterested judiciary have been violated
continuously.” (ECF No. 48, PageID 247).
For the most part, Plaintiff repeats the arguments he has previously made that 28 U.S.C. §
1331 entitles him to a decision on the merits despite the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Plaintiff
refuses to accept that the Supreme Court’s decisions in the Rooker and Feldman cases required
the dismissal of this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and also has refused to seek
appellate review of the dismissal. It would be useless to repeat the analysis.
It is therefore respectfully recommended that the Motion be denied on the same basis as
the prior three Motions for Relief from judgment.
The Magistrate Judge notes that in recommending denial of Plaintiff’s third motion for
relief from judgment on this basis, he recommended issuance of a show cause order under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 11 (Report and Recommendations, ECF No. 44, PageID 228). Plaintiff objected (ECF
Nos. 45, 46) and the District Court has adopted the Report and Recommendations, but no show
cause order has issued as of this date (ECF No. 47). The Magistrate Judge again urges the Court
to use its authority under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 to sanction and stop Plaintiff’s abuse of the judicial
process.

January 4, 2016.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

2

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).

3