IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

DAVID WAYNE VICKERS, ) CASE NO. 1:24 CV 1642 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE DAVID A. RUIZ ) v. ) ) U.S. ATTORNEY ) ORDER BRIDGET M. BRENNAN, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

On February 19, 2025, this Court dismissed pro se Plaintiff David Wayne Vickers’s civil complaint against former United States Attorney Bridget M. Brennan, and Assistant United States Attorney Brian McDonough. (R. 6 & 7). Plaintiff filed an objection to the Court’s Order, asserting it did not consider the causes of action set forth in his Amended Complaint. (R. 8).1 Plaintiff is mistaken. The Court’s Memorandum and Opinion Order specifically mentioned the Amended Complaint (R. 4), but found that the Amended Complaint, like the initial Complaint, “fails to state a viable cause of action for the foregoing reasons.” (R. 6, PageID# 79). Plaintiff’s Objection (R. 8) fails to persuade the Court any error of law occurred and it is, therefore, DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. March 14, 2025 /s/ David A. Ruiz DAVID A. RUIZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 “Objections” are not available to a District Court’s order. The Court construes Plaintiff's submission as a request for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure since it was filed within twenty-eight days of the judgment. See, e.g., Robinson v. Vigorito, Barker, Patterson, Nichols & Porter, LLP.,

, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2019); Lagmay v. Nakakuni,

, at *1 (D. Haw. Feb. 16, 2018).