McFadden v. Gainey

Filing 67

ORDER denying 61 Motion for Relief from Judgment under Rule 60. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 7/22/2013.(mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Joseph Lee McFadden, #436693,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Jerry Gainey,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________)

Civil Action No. 4:12-1470-MGL

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court upon Plaintiff Joseph Lee McFadden’s (Plaintiff) pro
se motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
After careful consideration of the motion and the record in this case, the court denies the
motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is an inmate in the South Carolina Department of Corrections and is housed
at Ridgeland Correctional Institution in Ridgeland, South Carolina. On June 4, 2012,
Plaintiff filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging his constitutional rights had
been violated. (ECF No. 1). Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and this
Court granted Defendant’s motion on February 4, 2013. (ECF No.49.) Plaintiff appealed
this Court’s order on February 11, 2013. (ECF No. 53). The Fourth Court of Appeals
affirmed this Court’s decision on April 30, 2013. (ECF No. 59). Plaintiff filed a petition for
re-hearing which the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied on June 17, 2013. (ECF No.
63). Prior to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on Plaintiff’s petition for rehearing, he filed the instant motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60 of the
1

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DISCUSSION OF THE LAW
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the court to relieve a party
from a final judgment for the following reasons:
. . . (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence by which due diligence could not have been discovered
in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore
denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct
of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been
satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based
has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the
judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason
justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.

In his motion, Plaintiff contends the judgment should be vacated due to fraud. Plaintiff also
expresses disagreement with the court’s prior determination that Defendant is entitled to
qualified immunity. Upon review of Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, it appears he simply
disagrees with the court's analysis and rehashes previously-made and rejected arguments.
As such, the court finds that Defendant's motion (ECF No. 61) must be DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
July 22, 2013
Florence, South Carolina

2