Byrd v. O'Connor, No. 2:2018cv00950 - Document 26 (S.D. Ohio 2019)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 24 Motion for prejury ; finding as moot document # 25 . Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 4/9/19. (sh)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
Byrd v. O'Connor Doc. 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION HOUSTON BYRD, Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:18-cv-950 JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH Magistrate Judge Jolson v. MAUREEN O’CONNOR, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Ohio, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Perjury and Censor, Removal and Sanction of Said Judge and Motion for Violation of a Guide for Pro Se Civil Litigants. (Docs. 24 and 25). Plaintiff continues to argue that his case was wrongfully dismissed and asks the Court to reconsider the Opinion and Order dismissing the case and the final judgment entered against Plaintiff on November 8, 2018. (Docs. 18 and 19). A motion for reconsideration is the opportunity for the court to “rectify its own mistakes in the period immediately following the entry to judgment,” not an opportunity for the Plaintiff to re-litigate issues previously considered. White v. N.H. Dep’t of Emp’t Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 450 (1982); Macdermid Inc. v. Electrochemicals Inc., Nos. 96-3995, 96-4072, 142 F.3d 435 (Table), 1998 WL 165137, at *6 n. 7 (6th Cir. 1998). There are limited situations in which a court will grant a motion for reconsideration, such as “when there is (1) an intervening change of controlling law; (2) new evidence available; or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Louisville/Jefferson Cty. Metro Gov’t v. Hotels.com, L.P., 590 F.3d 381,389 Dockets.Justia.com (6th Cir. 2009). The Court will only reconsider a prior motion under limited circumstances and Plaintiff has not made any allegations that fall within the aforementioned categories. Further, Plaintiff’s Motion is not substantiated or supported by any relevant law. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Perjury and Censor and for Violation of a Guide for Pro Se Civil Litigants are DENIED. Any other requests by Plaintiff not specifically addressed in this Opinion and Order are DENIED AS MOOT as this matter has been fully considered and final judgment has been entered. There is no basis for further review. The Clerk shall remove Documents 24 and 25 from the Court’s pending motions list and this case shall remain closed. The Court further orders that no additional motions or other requests for relief shall be filed in this case as this matter is closed. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ George C. Smith GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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.