Opinion

Reddrick v. Curran

  • 872 F.2d 1028
  • 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 4241
  • 1989 WL 34086
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Filed
Mar 31, 1989
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.3%

The opinion

872 F.2d 1028

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.

Samuel T. REDDRICK, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Charles CURRAN, Paula McCawaine, Donna Moon, L. Junior

Norris, Lee Falke, Chris Van Schiak, Victor T. Whisman,

Sandra K. Hobson, Andrew Niekamp, Walter F. Ruf, Ted E.

Millspaugh, James T. Cole, Tom Wilson, Sheriff, Olin, Deputy

Sheriff, Wilmer, Deputy Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-4124.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 31, 1989.

1

Before ENGEL, Chief Judge, BOGGS, Circuit Judge, and COHN, District Judge. *

ORDER

2

Plaintiff, Samuel T. Reddrick, appeals a judgment of the district court which denied his motion for relief from judgment filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). He now moves for the appointment of counsel. Upon consideration of the record and plaintiff's brief, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

3

Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) in the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. As the basis of his request for that relief, he maintained that a judgment entered by a magistrate exercising plenary jurisdiction over his civil rights action under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636 (c) was incorrect because it was based upon the misapplication of the law concerning motions for summary judgment and qualified immunity. Upon consideration of those claims, however, the magistrate denied the motion for relief from judgment. This appeal followed.

4

On appeal this court may disturb the denial of the motion for relief from judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) only if that action constituted an abuse of discretion. Windsor v. United States Dep't of Justice, 740 F.2d 6, 7 (6th Cir.1984) (per curiam); Peake v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 717 F.2d 1016, 1020 (6th Cir.1983). Review of the record discloses no such abuse in this appeal. Accordingly, the motion for appointment of counsel is hereby denied and the district court's final judgment is affirmed. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

*

The Honorable Avern Cohn, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.