Perkins v. Napoli et al, No. 6:2008cv06248 - Document 130 (W.D.N.Y. 2012)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER denying 112 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 122 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 7/19/12. (KAP)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ MICHAEL PERKINS, Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER -vs08-CV-6248 CJS D.F. NAPOLI, et al., Defendants. __________________________________________ On September 28, 2011, the Honorable Jonathan W. Feldman, United States Magistrate Judge, issued an Order addressing several non-dispositive pre-trial motions in this action. See, Order (Docket No. 108). Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that any objections to such a motion be filed w ithin fourteen days, or they are w aived. Plaintiff did not file a timely objection. Instead, more than tw o months later, he filed a motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 112), objecting to Judge Feldman s ruling, and essentially requesting the same relief that Judge Feldman denied. Plaintiff designates the motion as being made pursuant to FRCP 60(b)(3), w hich provides for relief from a judgment or order obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct. A Rule 60(b)(3) motion cannot be granted absent clear and convincing evidence of material misrepresentations, and to prevail a movant must show that the conduct complained of prevented the moving party from fully and fairly presenting his case. Entral Group Intern., LLC v. 7 Day Cafe & Bar, No. 07-1122-cv, 298 Fed.Appx. 43, 44, 2008 WL 4726306 at * 1 (2d Cir. Oct. 28, 2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff has not met this standard. 1 Plaintiff also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (Docket No. 122). The Court has review ed the application using the applicable standard, see, Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 392 (2d Cir. 1997) and Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986), and finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted. ORDER Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, that Plaintiff s applications [#112] & [#122] are denied. Dated: Rochester, New York July 19, 2012 ENTER: /s/ Charles J. Siragusa CHARLES J. SIRAGUSA United States District Judge 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.
