BUMGARNER v. UNITED STATES, No. 1:2008cv05245 - Document 37 (D.N.J. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying 36 Motion. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 3/1/10. (js)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY LARRY BUMBGARNER and STEPHEN P. WALLACE, Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL NO. 08-5245(NLH)(JS) UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER APPEARANCES: LARRY BUMGARNER 205 TOULON AVE EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP, NJ 08234 STEPHEN P. WALLACE 6528 E. 101ST, D-1 #304 TULSA, OK 74133 Appearing pro se ELIZABETH ANN PASCAL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 401 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 2098 CAMDEN, NJ 08101 On behalf of the United States and individual federal defendants JONATHAN M. KORN BLANK ROME, LLP 301 CARNEGIE CENTER 3RD FLOOR PRINCETON, NJ 08540 On behalf of JP Morgan Chase, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., and James Dimon HILLMAN, District Judge This matter having come before the Court on pro se plaintiff Stephen Wallace s Motion to Vacate Memorandum Opinion & Order Dated 1/28/10 pursuant to F.R.C.P. 60(b)(1) and Brief in Support ; and Plaintiff, along with co-plaintiff Larry Bumgarner, having filed a complaint against defendants, the United States of America, Ben Bernake, Henry Paulson, Sheila Blair, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (improperly plead as Goldman Sachs ), JP Morgan Chase & Co., and James Dimon, purportedly as U.S. taxpayers and private attorneys general, and on behalf of all United States taxpayers; and On August 11, 2009, the Court having dismissed plaintiffs complaint because it was moot, and because plaintiffs otherwise lacked standing and failed to state a claim (see Docket No. 32); and On January 28, 2010, plaintiff Stephen Wallace having filed a motion to vacate the Court s dismissal of his case, arguing that it was procured by fraud and is void, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), (4); and On that same day, the Court having denied plaintiff s motion; and Plaintiff having filed his instant motion seeking that the Court vacate its January 28, 2010 Order because when his motion was scanned onto the electronic docketing system, the second page of his filing was omitted; and Plaintiff arguing that the Clerk of the Court tampered with his filing, and, as a result, his motion was denied without the 2 Court having fully considered his motion; but The Court noting that a hard copy of plaintiff s entire motion, which plaintiff sent via express mail directly to chambers, was reviewed and considered prior to the Court s denial of plaintiff s motion; and The Court also noting that it was a clerical error in the electronic scanning process that caused the second page of plaintiff s motion to be omitted from the docket; and The Court further noting that the error has been corrected, and plaintiff s entire filing has been entered on the docket (see Docket No. 35); and Plaintiff not providing any other valid basis for why the Court should vacate its prior Orders; Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY on this 1st day of March, 2010 ORDERED that plaintiff s Motion to Vacate Memorandum Opinion & Order Dated 1/28/10 pursuant to F.R.C.P. 60(b)(1) [36] is DENIED. s/ Noel L. Hillman At Camden, New Jersey NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J. 3
]]>
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.
