Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Osborne v. Goins, 16-cv-504-SMY-RJD. (2019)

Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois Number: infdco20191017a12 Visitors: 2
Filed: Oct. 16, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 16, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STACI M. YANDLE , District Judge . Plaintiff Alexander Osborne, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC"), filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center. On January 24, 2019, this Court adopted Judge Daly's Report and Recommendation and granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 59). Accordingly, Judgment was entered
More

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Alexander Osborne, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC"), filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center. On January 24, 2019, this Court adopted Judge Daly's Report and Recommendation and granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 59). Accordingly, Judgment was entered against Plaintiff. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Judgment (Doc. 63).

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party relief from a judgment for several reasons including mistake or "any other reason justifying relief from the operation of judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). However, relief under Rule 60(b) is extraordinary and is only granted in exceptional circumstances. United States v. 8136 S. Dobson St., Chicago Ill., 125 F.3d 1076, 1082 (7th Cir. 1997).

Plaintiff asserts that medical issues prevented him from prosecuting his lawsuit. Although sympathetic of Plaintiff's difficulties, the Court finds his explanations insufficient to justify relief from judgment under Rule 60. Plaintiff provides no specific explanation as to why he failed to file a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, an objection to the Report, or a motion seeking assistance. Further, although Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendants' Motion, Judge Daly decided the Motion for Summary Judgment on the merits; she analyzed whether Defendants were in fact entitled to summary judgment based on the facts presented as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) and thoroughly discussed and supported her conclusion that Defendants did not violate Plaintiff's First and Eighth Amendment right. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer