McGrath v. Phelps

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION MICHAEL JOSEPH McGRATH PLAINTIFF v. No. 2:22-cv-02003 KEYSHA PHELPS, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER On July 20, 2023, this Court entered an order adopting Chief Magistrate Judge Mark E.

Ford’s report and recommendation that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. See Doc. 53. Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed on those grounds, over his written objection. See id. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to alter or amend judgment (Doc. 54) and a motion for continuance (Doc. 56), both of which essentially ask for this case to be reopened and for Plaintiff to be given another opportunity to pursue his claims.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides a list of circumstances under which a party may be relieved from a final judgment, order, or proceeding, including: mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence; fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; or “any other reason that justifies relief.” The Eighth Circuit has recognized that Rule 60(b) “provides for extraordinary relief which may be granted only upon an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances.” United States v. Young, 806 F.2d 805, 806 (8th Cir. 1986).

However, that a Rule 60(b) motion “is not a vehicle for simple reargument on the merits.”

Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 990 (8th Cir. 1999). Neither of Plaintiff’s motions presents any of the extraordinary grounds that would justify reopening this case. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions to alter or amend judgment (Doc. 54) and for continuance (Doc. 56) are both DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of October, 2023. /s/P. K. Holmes, III P.K. HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE