Thurman v. Oklahoma County Commissioners et al

Filing 116

ORDER denying 115 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Marcus Thurman. Signed by Judge Charles Goodwin on 11/18/2022. (jb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MARCUS THURMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
OKLAHOMA COUNTY et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-17-950-G

ORDER
Now before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 115) filed by
Plaintiff Marcus Thurman, a state prisoner appearing pro se. Having considered Plaintiff’s
arguments and the relevant record, the Motion is DENIED.
I.

Background
Plaintiff initiated this federal civil rights action on September 5, 2017, naming

multiple defendants. The matter was referred for initial proceedings to Magistrate Judge
Shon T. Erwin.
In June of 2020, Defendant Detention Center Officer (FNU) Miller filed a Second
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 87). After a Response (Doc. No. 103) from
Plaintiff was docketed, Judge Erwin issued an Order directing Plaintiff to clarify whether
the Response was intended to address Defendant Miller’s Second Motion or an earlier
stricken motion. See Order of Mar. 8, 2021 (Doc. No. 104). On March 18, 2021, Plaintiff
filed a Letter (Doc. No. 105), in which he stated: “[M]y filing (ECF No. 103) . . . was . . .

my objection to . . . Defendant Miller’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment.” Pl.’s
Letter at 1.
On April 29, 2021, Judge Erwin issued a Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.”),
in which he recommended that Defendant Miller’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment
be granted. See R. & R. (Doc. No. 106). In the R. & R., Judge Erwin advised the parties
of their right to object and advised that a failure to object would constitute a waiver of the
right to appellate review of the factual findings and legal conclusions contained in the R.
& R. See id. at 15.
The Court ordered two extensions of the objection deadline, resulting in a final due
date of July 1, 2021. See Doc. Nos. 108, 111. As of July 21, 2021, however, Plaintiff had
not submitted an objection or another request for an extension of time. Accordingly, the
undersigned adopted the R. & R., granted Defendant Miller’s Second Motion for Summary
Judgment, and entered judgment. See Order of July 21, 2021 (Doc. No. 112); J. (Doc. No.
113).
II.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
On July 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No.

115).
Liberally construed, Plaintiff seeks to vacate the Court’s judgment and allow
reconsideration of Defendant Miller’s dispositive motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Rule provides that, “[o]n motion and just terms,” a
court may relieve a party “from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for “any other
reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is
2

“difficult to attain,” Davis v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr., 507 F.3d 1246, 1248 (10th Cir. 2007)
(internal quotation marks omitted), and is appropriate only “when circumstances are so
unusual or compelling that extraordinary relief is warranted, or when it offends justice to
deny such relief,” Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572, 580 (10th Cir. 1996)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
In his Motion, Plaintiff first cites his Letter and argues that “it appears as if
documents sent through the prison mail system on March 15th, 2021,” were not filed with
the Court. Pl.’s Mot. at 2; see id. Ex. 1 (Doc. No. 115-1). As noted above, however,
Plaintiff’s Letter was duly received and filed by the Court as ECF No. 105 on March 18,
2021. The Letter also was expressly considered by Judge Erwin in the R. & R. See R. &
R. at 1 n.1. This objection is therefore meritless.
Plaintiff next argues, somewhat inconsistently, that due to his pro se status and
transfers between prison facilities he was unable to file a substantive response to the
Second Motion for Summary Judgment and requests that the Court consider the briefing
included with his Motion. See Pl.’s Mot. at 3-13. Plaintiff again fails to show any
entitlement to relief. As a threshold matter, it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to apprise the
Court of any address changes. See LCvR 5.4 (“Papers sent by the court will be deemed
delivered if sent to the last known address given to the court.”). Further, if Plaintiff wished
to raise further objections to the entry of summary judgment, he could have stated as much
to Judge Erwin or following issuance of the R. & R. Instead, he failed to object to the R.
& R. and waited nearly a year to file the instant Motion, raising arguments in response to

3

a dispositive motion filed over two years ago. Under these circumstances, the Court does
not find that extraordinary relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is warranted.
CONCLUSION
For all these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 115) is
DENIED.
The Court Clerk is directed to update the case record with the address appearing on
Plaintiff’s mailing envelope to the Motion for Reconsideration, see Doc. No. 115-2.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of November, 2022.

4