UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

MACHELLE COLLINS, Case No. 1:18-cv-268

Plaintiff, Black, J.

Litkovitz, M.J.

vs. 

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY, REPORT AND

Defendant. RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motions to reopen the case. (Docs. 31, 32). 

On April 20, 2020, the undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation to the District Judge 

recommending that the Court grant the Commissioner’s motion to enter an order and judgment 

reversing the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to the fourth 

sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), with remand to the Commissioner for further administrative 

proceedings. (Doc. 21). Plaintiff was advised that she had 14 days to file objections to the 

Report and Recommendation. (Id. at PAGEID 127). Plaintiff failed to file any objections, and 

on June 16, 2020, the District Judge adopted the Report and Recommendation and entered 

judgment in this case. (Docs. 23, 24). Three months later, plaintiff filed a motion opposing the 

remand and her opposition to the motion to remand. (Docs. 25, 26).

On November 20, 2020, the undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation to the 

District Judge recommending that the Court deny plaintiff’s motion opposing the remand. (Doc. 

27). Construing plaintiff’s motion as a request to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 59 and/or motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, the undersigned stated 

that plaintiff’s request to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59 was untimely because it was 

not filed within 28 days after entry of the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). (Id. at 

PAGEID 143). Moreover, plaintiff failed to show that relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00268-TSB-KLL Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/19/21 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 162
2

Civ. P. 60(b) was warranted. (Id.). The District Judge adopted the undersigned’s Report and 

Recommendation on May 3, 2021. (Doc. 29).

On July 21, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the case. (Doc. 31). Plaintiff’s 

motion, in its entirety, provides:

Commissioner Andrew Saul was fired in good faith he constantly remanded my 

case for SSDI. Now I want my case open and yes I do oppose his remand. His 

blind sightedness toward SSDI concerning my case caused my SSDI benefits to be 

dismissed. My transcript is on file which is evident that I meet the requirements 

for SSDI, we have a new commissioner with a new administration that cares about 

my SSDI case. Please keep my case open so that benefits that I’m entitled to can 

be applied to my SSDI benefits.

(Id.). On October 12, 2021, plaintiff filed a second motion to reopen the case where she

contends her case should be reopened for SSDI benefits. (Doc. 32). Plaintiff specifically argues: 

First of all the intrested (sic) party in this case fought against me, the attorney took 

no intrest (sic) or mention of my mental health history. The attorney did’nt (sic) 

make any effort to represent or stand for my rights. Therefore please reopen my 

case for SSDI Benifits (sic). No one sent letters to me informing me about my case. 

(Id.). As best the Court can discern, it appears that plaintiff opposes the remand of her case and 

requests that her case remain open. (Docs. 31, 32). For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s 

motions should be denied.

Plaintiff’s motions opposing the motion to remand were filed after the entry of judgment 

against her. Therefore, the Court liberally construes plaintiff’s pro se motions as a request to 

alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and/or motion for relief from judgment 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.

First, any request to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59 is untimely. Pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), a motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed within 28 days after 

entry of the judgment. As this Court previously explained (Doc. 27), judgment was entered in 

Case: 1:18-cv-00268-TSB-KLL Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/19/21 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 163
3

this case on June 16, 2020. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff’s motions were filed after the deadline had 

expired. Therefore, plaintiff’s motions to alter or amend the judgment should be denied as 

untimely.

Second, plaintiff has not shown that relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b) is warranted. Rule 60(b) provides, in relevant part, for relief from a 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 it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other 

reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). It is well-established that Rule 60(b)(6) 

applies “only in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances which are not addressed by the first 

five numbered clauses of the Rule.” Hopper v. Euclid Manor Nursing Home, 867 F.2d 291, 294 

(6th Cir. 1989). See also Fuller v. Quire, 916 F.2d 358, 360 (6th Cir. 1990).

Plaintiff has not addressed any of the six reasons set forth in Rule 60(b) to justify relief 

from judgment in this case. Nor has she alleged any facts which suggest that relief from 

judgment is warranted in this case. Therefore, it is recommended that relief from judgment in 

this case be denied. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s motions to reopen the case (Docs. 31, 32) be DENIED.

2. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that for the foregoing reasons an 

Case: 1:18-cv-00268-TSB-KLL Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/19/21 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 164
4 

appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith 

and therefore deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff remains free to apply to 

proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 

803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 277 

(6th Cir. 1997). 

Date:____________ _________________________ 

 Karen L. Litkovitz 

 Chief United States Magistrate Judge

10/18/2021

Case: 1:18-cv-00268-TSB-KLL Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/19/21 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 165
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

MACHELLE COLLINS, Case No. 1:18-cv-268

Plaintiff, Black, J.

Litkovitz, M.J.

vs. 

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written 

objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after 

being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely 

motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of the 

R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the 

objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN DAYS after 

being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in accordance with this 

procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States 

v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

Case: 1:18-cv-00268-TSB-KLL Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/19/21 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 166