Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Inman v. Riebe

United States District Court, D. Maine

November 9, 2017

FRANK INMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
WENDY RIEBE, et al., Defendants

          RECOMMENDED DECISION ON PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

          John C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge.

         In this action, Plaintiff Frank Inman alleged that Defendants Wendy Riebe, Robert Clinton, M.D., and George Stockwell, M.D., were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs while he was incarcerated at the Maine Correctional Center. On August 1, 2017, the Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of Defendants.[1] (Order, ECF No. 97; Judgment, ECF No. 98.)

         On October 6, 2017, the Court received a letter from Plaintiff in which Plaintiff stated he had “newly discovered information there is factual proof that plaintiff was in fact suffering from Huntington's disease and it was active since 2011 [and that] therefore defendants' denying that the plaintiff was not active was a lie.” (ECF No. 99.) On October 25, 2017, the Court received a second letter from Plaintiff in which Plaintiff referred to his prior letter as a request to reopen the case. (ECF No. 100.) The Court construes Plaintiff's filings to be a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). After review of Plaintiff's submissions, I recommend the Court deny Plaintiff's request for relief.[2]

         Discussion

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

         In his motion, Plaintiff in essence asserts that the case should be reopened because new evidence proves Defendants misled the Court in their summary judgment motion regarding Plaintiff's “active” ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.