Richardson v. TI Automative Group Systems et al

Filing 20

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT: (1) PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS TO CLARIFY (DOC. 18 , 19 ) BE DENIED (DOC. 19 ); AND (2) THIS CASE REMAIN TERMINATED ON THE COURTS DOCKET. Objections to R&R due by 1/2/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 12/18/17. (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
EARL RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:17-cv-226

vs.
TI AUTOMOTIVE GROUP
SYSTEMS, et al.,

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

Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT: (1) PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO
CLARIFY (DOC. 18, 19) BE DENIED (DOC. 19); AND (2) THIS CASE REMAIN
TERMINATED ON THE COURT’S DOCKET
______________________________________________________________________________
This civil case is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s motion to clarify purportedly filed
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a).

Docs. 18, 19.

Defendants did not file memoranda in

opposition to pro se Plaintiff’s motion, and the time for doing so has expired. The undersigned
has carefully reviewed pro se Plaintiffs’ motions, and they are now ripe for decision.
Plaintiff filed his original pro se complaint on July 5, 2017. Doc. 1-2. On September 26,
2017, Defendant AI Automotive Group Systems filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint.
Doc. 8. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B), pro se Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
October 6, 2017. Doc. 9. “An amended complaint supersedes the original pleading” and,
therefore, motions seeking dismissal of an original complaint are generally moot following the
filing of an amended complaint.” O’Malley v. NaphCare, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-326, 2013 WL
1438028, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 9, 2013) (citing Yates v. Applied Performance Techs., Inc., 205
F.R.D. 497, 499 (S.D.Ohio 2002)).
1

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

Following pro se Plaintiff’s filing of his amended complaint, Defendant AI Automotive
Group Systems filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Doc. 10. On November 21,
2017, the Court: (1) adopted the undersigned’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 12); (2)
denied Defendant’s original motion to dismiss (doc. 8) as moot; (3) granted Defendants’ motion
to dismiss the amended complaint (doc. 10); (4) dismissed pro se Plaintiff’s amended complaint
(doc. 9); and (5) terminated the case on the Court’s docket. Doc. 15.
Pro se Plaintiff now seeks relief under Fed. R. 60(a), arguing that the Court’s order is
confusing. Docs. 18, 19.2 Pursuant to Rule 60(a), “[t]he court may correct a clerical mistake or
a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or
other part of the record.” Finding no mistake in the Court’s Order (doc. 15), the undersigned
RECOMMENDS that pro se Plaintiff’s motions (docs. 18, 19) be DENIED and that this case
remain TERMINATED on the Court’s docket.

Date: December 18, 2017

2

s/ Michael J. Newman
Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge

Pro se Plaintiff has filed two identical motions in this regard. Docs. 18, 19.
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