Parisi v. Mathias Heck, Jr. Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, individually an in his official capacity et al, No. 3:2014cv00346 - Document 61 (S.D. Ohio 2015)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF STRIKING RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTIONS (ECF No. 60). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 10/9/2015. (kpf)

Download PDF
Parisi v. Mathias Heck, Jr. Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, ind...is official capacity et al Doc. 61 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON GEORGIANNA I. PARISI, Plaintiff, - vs : Case No. 3:14-cv-346 District Judge Thomas M. Rose Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz - MATHIAS HECK, JR., et al., Defendant. : DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF STRIKING RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTIONS This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 60) for the Magistrate Judge to reconsider his Order (ECF No. 51) Striking Plaintiff’s Response (ECF No. 50) to the Prosecutor’s Response (ECF No. 47) to Plaintiff’s Objections to the pending Report and Recommendations (ECF No. 39). Courts disfavor motions for reconsideration because they consume a court’s scarce time for attention to a matter that has already been decided. They are subject to limitations based on that disfavor. As a general principle, motions for reconsideration are looked upon with disfavor unless the moving party demonstrates: (1) a manifest error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence which was not available previously to the parties; or (3) intervening authority. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3rd Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171, 90 L. Ed. 2d 982 (1986). Meekison v. Ohio Dep't of Rehabilitation & Correction, 181 F.R.D. 571, 572 (S.D. Ohio 1998)(Marbley, J.). The document which the Court struck was a reply by Plaintiff to a Response filed by the Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney Defendants. Plaintiff had sought leave to file such a document and the Court had denied leave (ECF No. 48 and notation order denying). Plaintiff went ahead and filed anyway, despite being denied leave and the Magistrate Judge struck the filing with an explanation that such a memorandum was not authorized (ECF No. 51). In seeking reconsideration, Plaintiff asserts her proposed filing addressed the elements of theft (as the MCPO continue to contend that Defendant Thomas Shaw’s “investigation” was just a series of starts and stops in a never ending criminal investigation, despite a lack of probable cause) as well as additional facts concerning the said “investigation”. The Response also addresses the MCPO Defendants’ contention that there was no requirement for the Montgomery County Probate Judge and Magistrates to report the issues regarding attorneys Patrick Mulligan and Mary K. C. Soter to the DBA. The Plaintiff further addresses a mischaracterization of her argument, as noted by the MCPO Defendants’ in footnote 41 in their Response. (Doc #42 page 447). (Motion, ECF No. 60, PageID 653.) Plaintiff never attempts to show that reconsideration is merited by a manifest error of law in striking her memorandum. She does not even cite to authority from this Court or any other court allowing a reply to a response to objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Nor has she made a case for the necessity to create an exception here. For 2 example, there is no obligation to stop a criminal investigation because no probable cause has yet been found; rather, the obligation is not to file charges without probable cause. This case has already acquired over six hundred pages of filings as of the end of September. Plaintiff has not proven that number should be increased. The Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 60) is DENIED. October 9, 2015. s/ Michael R. Merz United States Magistrate Judge 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.