Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Semple v. Desoto Police Dept.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

May 9, 2018

JOANN B. SEMPLE, Plaintiff,
v.
DESOTO POLICE DEPT., ET AL., Defendants.

          FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          REBECCA RUTHERFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and an Order of the District Court, this case has been referred to the United States magistrate judge. The Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge follow:

         I.

         Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint on June 12, 2017. On July 3, 2017, the Court sent Plaintiff a Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire seeking additional information regarding her claims. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the Questionnaire, and on October 10, 2017, the District Court dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

         On December 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the dismissal and reopen this case (ECF No. 13), and on December 29, 2017, she filed an amended motion to set aside the dismissal (ECF No. 14). In her motions, Plaintiff states she was involved in an accident that caused her to be immobile for several months. She also claimed she did not receive notice of the dismissal of her complaint, and that she only learned of the dismissal when she visited the Clerk's Office on December 20, 2017.

         On January 31, 2018, in response to Plaintiff's motions to reopen, the Court re-sent the Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire to Plaintiff. The Questionnaire stated that Plaintiff's response was due thirty days from the date of the Order. Plaintiff did not respond to the Questionnaire. Instead, on March 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend her complaint to add a defendant (ECF No. 17). On March 26, 2018, the Court again sent Plaintiff the Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire and ordered her to respond to the Questionnaire within thirty days. Plaintiff has never responded to the Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire.

         II.

         Under Rule 60(b)(6), the Court may relieve a party from a final judgment for the following reasons:

         (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

         (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

         (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

         (4) the judgment is void;

         (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.