Mary Scott v. Metropolitan Health Corp., No. 08-1934 (6th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 13a0723n.06 FILED Case No. 08-1934 Aug 07, 2013 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT MARY SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN HEALTH CORP., et al., Defendants-Appellees. _______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN BEFORE: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; SUHRHEINRICH and SUTTON, Circuit Judges. ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Chief Judge. Plaintiff-appellant Mary Scott appeals a postjudgment order denying her Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) motion to vacate an award of sanctions. We affirm. When the district court realized that plaintiff Mary Scott had prosecuted a baseless retaliatory discharge suit (based on falsified evidence, perjury, and improperly withheld discovery), it dismissed her case and awarded defense counsel $1.6 million in discovery sanctions, representing approximately 80% of the costs incurred. Scott appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial judge should have sua sponte ordered a hearing so that Scott could testify in person, and should have sua sponte recused himself. Scott appealed and we affirmed, holding that the sanctions were properly imposed, a hearing was not required, and the recusal of the trial judge was not warranted. Scott v. Metropolitan Health Corp., 234 F. App x 341, 345 (6th Cir. 2007). Scott filed a motion in the district court, seeking under Rules 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(6) to vacate 08-1934, Scott v. Metropolitan the judgment on the grounds that the discovery sanction had actually been a criminal contempt order and therefore the absence of a hearing violated due process, and that the trial judge should have recused himself. The district court, relying primarily on the prior Sixth Circuit opinion, denied the motion. Scott appeals. We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion. Browder v. Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7 (1978). We note first that Scott wholly failed to make any argument relative to her Rule 60(b)(4) motion and, therefore, only her Rule 60(b)(6) motion is before us. The district court did not abuse its discretion by relying on our prior, correct rulings to deny the Rule 60(b)(6) motion. Moreover, her claims have no merit. We AFFIRM. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
