BARRICK v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS et al
| ROBERT BARRICK |
| KIRK BARRICK, TERESA BARRICK, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, PATRICIA COULTER, DOES 1-200, AMY FLOYD, RICHARD HITE, BRIAN MAHONE, PRIME DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC., DAWN SNYDER, WIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. and DAVID ZIEMBER |
| 1:2014cv01137 |
| July 8, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Debra McVicker Lynch |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
54
ENTRY Discussing Post-Judgment Motions. In order for a Rule 60(b) movant to obtain the relief requested, he must show that he had both grounds for relief and a meritorious claim or defense. The primary post-judgment motion does not show either of these circumstances. A plausible claim was not presented initially and an adequate substitute has not been offered. The primary post-judgment motion [dkt 39], treated as a motion for relief from judgment for the reasons which have been explained, is therefore denied. The motion for a ruling [dkt 50] is granted insofar as consistent with this Entry. The other ancillary motions [dkt 45 and 47] are denied as moot. SEE ENTRY. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/21/2015. Copy sent to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. (BGT)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
