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

December 8, 2017

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

          ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         The Court affirms a recommended decision that a civil plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment be denied, because the plaintiff's motion does not establish that any evidence was newly discovered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), because the plaintiff's complaints about failing to receive documents was caused by the plaintiff's own failure to maintain a current address with the Court, and because in any event, the plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion is time-barred.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On March 2, 2015, Frank Inman, then an inmate in the Maine Correctional Center (MCC), filed a complaint with this Court against three individual medical providers at the MCC, alleging that they failed to render him proper medical treatment and thereby violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compl. (ECF No. 1). On June 30, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a recommended decision in which he recommended that the Court grant a motion to dismiss as to Wendy Riebe, but deny the motion as to the remaining defendants. Recommended Decision (ECF No. 27). On August 18, 2015, the Court rejected the Magistrate Judge's recommendation as to Wendy Riebe and affirmed the recommendation as to the other defendants. Order Affirming in Part and Rejecting in Part the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 35). On September 2, 2015, the Defendants answered Mr. Inman's Complaint. Ans., Defenses and Affirmative Defenses of Defs. Wendy Riebe, HSA, Dr. Robert Clinton, MD, and Dr. George Stockwell, DO and Req. for Trial by Jury (ECF No. 38). After discovery and a series of non-dispositive motions and orders, on February 1, 2016, Mr. Inman filed a motion for summary judgment. Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 69). On May 5, 2016, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny Mr. Inman's motion for summary judgment. Recommended Decision on Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 83). On June 2, 2016, the Court affirmed the May 5, 2016 recommended decision. Order Affirming the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 89).

         On May 16, 2016, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. CCS Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 87). On July 1, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a recommended decision in which he recommended that the Court dismiss Mr. Inman's claims against each Defendant. Recommended Decision on Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 91). On August 1, 2016, the Court affirmed the recommended decision, and on August 2, 2016, the Clerk's Office entered judgment in favor of the Defendants and against Mr. Inman. Order Affirming the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 97); J. (ECF No. 98).

         On October 6, 2017, Mr. Inman filed a letter with the Court. Letter from Frank Inman to Clerk of Ct. (ECF No. 99). In the letter, Mr. Inman wrote:

Due to newly discovered information there is factual proof that plaintiff was in fact suffering from Huntington's disease and it was active since 2011 when plaintiff was hit by a car. Therefore defendant[]s denying that the plaintiff was not active was a lie.
Plaintiff brought Jonathan Richard with him to plaintiffs appointment with his Huntington's specialist, therefore Mr. Richard is a witness. Plaintiffs specialist said he's in the mid stages of the disease, he ordered that the plaintiff eat 5000 calories a day, drink 3 boost drinks, and continue his 4000 mg of fish oil. The specialist said plaintiff requires regular care and regular appointments with the specialist to make sure the plaintiff is in the best health for the disease.

Id. at 1.

         Mr. Inman followed his October 6, 2017 letter with another letter that he filed with the Court on October 25, 2017. Letter from Frank Inman to Clerk (ECF No. 100).

         In this letter, he wrote:

This is Frank Inman. I'm writing in regards to case Frank Inman v. [W]endy Riebe et al. I wrote a letter about 2 or three weeks ago about reopening the case[, ] but I have not heard anything back. I've also been waiting to hear back on the case I tried to file Frankie Inman-Arbo v. Mark Sullivan, Megan Sullivan, and Michelle Sullivan; as I am incarcerated I do need the general assistance with filing like I have with the other cases I've filed due to not having access to a computer puts a burden on me, therefore, requesting that I type in correct format places an unreasonable burden on me.
Thank you very much for your time and I look forward to ...

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.