HERMAN J. WEBER, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 47), plaintiff's objections (doc. no. 49) and defendant, David R. Wood's, response (doc. no. 50). The Magistrate Judge concluded that plaintiff failed to allege any facts or present any evidence demonstrating that the Court lacked jurisdiction over his claims or acted in a manner that violated due process. Plaintiff's conclusory argument is insufficient to establish that the District Judge's November 13, 2012 Order (doc. no. 38) is a legal nullity. Likewise, plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Rule 60(b)(6) applies "only in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances which are not addressed by the first five numbered clauses of the Rule." Hopper v. Euclid Manor Nursing Home, 867 F.2d 291, 294 (6th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff has not alleged any facts which justify granting this extraordinary relief. The Magistrate Judge, therefore, recommended that plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (doc. no. 41) be denied.

Plaintiff objects to the Judge's Report and Recommendation on the grounds that his findings are contrary to law.

CONCLUSION

Upon a de novo review of the record, especially in light of plaintiff's objections, the Court finds that plaintiff's objections have either been adequately addressed and properly disposed of by the Judge or present no particularized arguments that warrant specific responses by this Court. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge has accurately set forth the controlling principles of law and properly applied them to the particular facts of this case and agrees with the Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS AND INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE HEREIN the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 47). Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (doc. no. 41) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.