Towner v. Gracefo et al, No. 6:2010cv06148 - Document 22 (W.D.N.Y. 2010)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 20 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by William M. Skretny, Chief Judge U.S.D.C. on 10/6/2010.(CMD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Towner v. Gracefo et al Doc. 22 -PS-O- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JAMES TOWNER, 99A4878, Plaintiff, DECISION and ORDER 10-CV-6148Fe -vDR. GRACEFO, Auburn C.F. M.D., DR. EDWARDS, Attica C.F., DR. EVANS, Attica C.F. DR. JON MILLER, Coxsackie C.F., ATTICA CORR FAC MEDICAL DEPT, and JAMES T. CONWAY, Supt., Defendants. Plaintiff, James Towner, proceeding pro se, filed a packet of papers docketed as a Declaration (Docket No. 20). Contained in the packet of papers filed by the plaintiff are numerous individually labeled papers including, Motion filed Pursuant to Rule 60 Relief from Judgment or Order in which plaintiff requests review of the July 25, 2010 Order dismissing this action with prejudice (Docket No. 18).1 The Court has reviewed plaintiff s motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding when, for example, there has been a mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, or newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have 1 The packet of papers filed by the plaintiff after dism issal of the case also includes docum ents entitled, Declaration, Appeal Notice, Injunction Relief Motion for Ex Parte Hearing, Motion for T.R.O., Motion filed Pursuant to Rule 38-39 of Federal Procedure Rules, Motion filed Pursuant to Rule 44 Proof of Official Records Pursuant to Federal Procedure Rules 44/45, Motion Rule #52 Judgm ent on Partial Finding, Motion Filed Pursuant to Rule 53(Appointm ent), Motion Filed Pursuant to Rule-59 Am endm ent of Judgm ent. These m otions are not being separately docketed due to the prior dism issal of the case in its initial pleadings stage and the docketing of a Notice of Appeal (Docket No. 21). Dockets.Justia.com been discovered in time.2 Nothing in plaintiff s motion for reconsideration allows the Court to grant relief from the July 25, 2010 Order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Plaintiff does not demonstrate that there has been mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, or newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time, nor does he show that his claim should be reopened in the interest of justice. Accordingly, plaintiff s motion for reconsideration is hereby denied. SO ORDERED Dated: October 6, 2010 Buffalo, New York s/William M. Skretny WILLIAM M. SKRETNY Chief Judge United States District Court 2 Plaintiff filed the m otion on August 11, 2010, eight days from entry of judgm ent on August 3, 2010 (Docket 19) and also filed a Notice of Appeal of the judgm ent on August 19, 2010 (Docket No. 21). The Court has jurisdiction to determ ine plaintiff s m otion for reconsideration. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4)(A). 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.
