Easterling v. Cassanos Inc et al

Filing 29

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT PRO SE PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (DOC. 26 ) BE DENIED ***** ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO SERVE THIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION BY FIRST CLASS UNITED STATES MAIL- Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMME NDED that Plaintiffs motion (doc. 26 ) be DENIED, and that this case remain TERMINATED on the Courts docket. Objections to R&R due by 8/10/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 7/27/17. (kma)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
WARREN EASTERLING,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:16-cv-340

vs.
CASSANOS, INC., et al.

District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM JUDGMENT (DOC. 26) BE DENIED
*****
ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO SERVE THIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BY FIRST CLASS UNITED STATES MAIL
______________________________________________________________________________
This civil case -- in which pro se Plaintiff Warren Easterling (“Easterling”) alleged claims of
employment discrimination -- is before the Court on Easterling’s motion for relief from judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Doc. 26. Previously, Judge Rose dismissed Easterling’s complaint on
the basis that his claims were barred by res judicata. Doc. 23. In his motion, Easterling argues that relief
from judgment should be granted for two reasons: (1) Defendants never argued or demonstrated that his
termination was lawful; and (2) the Court improperly converted Defendants’ motion to dismiss into a
motion for summary judgment. Doc. 26.
Easterling’s arguments are without merit. “Relief from a final judgment under Rule 60(b) is an
‘extraordinary remedy that is granted only in exceptional circumstances.’” McAlpin v. Lexington 76 Auto
Truck Stop, Inc., 229 F.3d 491, 502-03 (6th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). A motion for such relief from
judgment may only be granted for one of six enumerated reasons:
(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 (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
1

Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and
Recommendation.

misrepresentation, or other 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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Easterling’s arguments in support of relief under Rule 60(b) do not fall within any
of these enumerated reasons.
Nevertheless, the undersigned addresses the merits of Easterling’s contentions. First, insofar as
Easterling contends that Defendants failed to prove that his termination was lawful, such issue did not
need to be addressed by either Defendants or the Court because Easterling’s claims were barred by res
judicata. Doc. 23; see also Bragg v. Flint Bd. of Educ., 570 F.3d 775, 776 (6th Cir. 2009) (stating that,
under the doctrine of res judicata, “a final judgment on the merits bars further claims by parties or their
privies based on the same cause of action”).
Second, contrary to Easterling’s contention, Defendants’ motion to dismiss was never converted
into a motion for summary judgment.

See id.

As required by Rule 12(b)(6), the Court decided

Defendants’ motion to dismiss based only upon consideration of Easterling’s allegations -- construed
favorably to him -- and upon information set forth in the public record, i.e., the Court’s docket in Case
No. 3:15-cv-32 -- which was also dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). See
Easterling v. Cassano’s Inc., No. 3:15-CV-032, 2015 WL 1396462, at *1-5 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 25, 2015).
Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion (doc. 26) be
DENIED, and that this case remain TERMINATED on the Court’s docket. The Clerk is ORDERED to
serve this Report and Recommendation on pro se Plaintiff by First Class United States mail at his address
of record.

Date:

July 27, 2017

s/ Michael J. Newman
Michael J. Newman
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 Recommendation. This period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) if served on you by
electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system.

If, however, this Report and

Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is extended to SEVENTEEN DAYS by
application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Parties may seek an extension of the deadline to file objections by
filing a motion for extension, which the Court may grant upon a showing of good cause.
Any objections filed shall specify the portions of the Report and Recommendation objected to,
and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and
Recommendation is 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. As noted above, this period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) if served
on you by electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. If, however, this Report and
Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is extended to SEVENTEEN DAYS by
application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir.
1981).

3