UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL G. ERSKINE,
Case No. 2:18-cv-227
Plaintiff, CHIEF JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

vy.
CHARLES A. GERKEN, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Michael G. Erskine’s Motion to Correct a
Clerical Error and for Relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 (ECF No. 10). For the
following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

L
A. Rule 60(a)

Plaintiff asks the Court to correct the record under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a),
which states, in relevant part, that “(t]he court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising
from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the
record.” Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the docket be corrected to show that he brings his
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. (Mot. at 1, ECF No. 10.) The Court GRANTS this request and
will direct the Clerk to update the docket.

B. Rule 60(b)(6)

Plaintiff also asks the Court for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(b)(6). (Mot. at 1, ECF No. 10.) In her Report and Recommendation, the United

States Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's claims under 28 U.S.C.


§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. (R. & R. at 6, ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff did not object, so the Court
affirmed and adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed Plaintiffs claims. (May
11, 2018 Op. & Order at 1, ECF No. 8.)

Rule 60(b)’s catchall category, subsection (6), permits a court to reopen a judgment for
“any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is
available “only in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances which are not addressed by the
first five numbered clauses of the Rule” and where principles of equity mandate relief. Olle v.
Henry & Wright Corp., 910 F.2d 357, 365 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting Hopper v. Euclid Manor
Nursing Home, Inc., 867 F.2d 291, 294 (6th Cir. 1989)).

Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because the Report and
Recommendation is a “legal nullity.” (Mot. at 1.) The Report and Recommendation is a nullity
because the Court purportedly “has no concurrent [jJurisdiction with the ‘state’ court as no
[jJurisdiction by law was ever invoked in the State of Ohio.” (/d.)

Plaintiffs argument lacks merit. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case
given that Plaintiff brings his claims under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts
shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties
of the United States.”). Plaintiff's request under Rule 60(b)(6) is therefore DENIED.

IL.

For these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Correct a Clerical Error and for Relief under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART. The Court DIRECTS that the docket be updated to indicate that Plaintiff brings his case

under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. The Court declines though to grant Plaintiff relief from its May 11,

2018 judgment.


IT IS SO ORDERED.

6- 47-018
DATE EDMURD\A. SARGUS, JR.
CHIE TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE