IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION RONNIE L. BROWN, III d/b/a Brown’s Cross Country Hauling LLC PLAINTIFF Case No. 3:21-cv-00118-LPR RE GARRISON TRUCKING; WYLES GRIFFITH; SHAWN NELSON; ANNETTE MUNGER; KEITH GORMAN DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff Ronnie Brown’s pro se lawsuit was dismissed on November 5, 2021 for failure to prosecute.! Over five months later, on April 18, 2022, Mr. Brown filed a document he called a Motion to Continue Law Suit.? The Court will interpret his motion as a Rule 60 relief-from- Judgment request. Defendants object, arguing the motion is unfounded and, in any event, the dismissal for failure to prosecute has the legal effect of robbing this Court of jurisdiction.? Mr. Brown’s motion is denied. He provides no reason that would justify relief. Rather, he simply states that he was “unavailable for a period of time due to some personal reasons... .”4 This explanation is insufficient. It does not fall into any of the parameters of Rule 60(b).° IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of May, 2022.

LEE P. RUDOFSKY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Order, Doc. 13. 2 Motion to Continue Lawsuit, Doc. 17. 3 Response to Motion to Continue Lawsuit, Doc. 18 (citing Hayes v. Reeves,

, *2 (W.D. AR 2015). *Doc. 17 at 1. 5 Even if the motion is treated as a motion to amend the complaint, the result would be the same. The liberal Rule 15 standard for amending a complaint does not apply after a final judgment is entered. See United States v. Hypoguard USA, Inc.,

(8th Cir. 2009). The more onerous Rule 60 standard applies. Jd. There is some play in the joints here. A district court may not ignore the Rule 15(a)(2) considerations. See

I have not. The amendment would be futile because it does not state a viable cause of action.