United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage
MICHAEL A. CARONTE, Plaintiff,
LT. ALBERT CHIUMENTO #3522; LT. DAVID AMICO Defendants.
Daniel B. Zonies, Esq., Counsel for Plaintiff Michael
REYNOLDS & HORN, P.C., By: Thomas B. Reynolds; John J.
Bannan, Counsel for Defendants Lt. Albert Chiumento and Lt.
RENÉE MARIE BUMB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Opinion and Order dated March 2, 2018, the Court granted
Defendants' summary judgment motion. [Dkt. No. 46]
Plaintiff Michael Caronte filed no opposition to that motion.
Plaintiff, apparently proceeding pro
se, presently moves to reopen the case
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60. For the reasons that follow, the
motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
seeks to reopen this case thirteen months after the
Court's Opinion and Order on Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment were issued. [Dkt. No. 50]. Plaintiff's
one-page submission asserts that his former attorney, Daniel
Zonies, committed malpractice when he “didn't even
bother to tell [Plaintiff] that this case was
dismissed.” [Id.] Defendants oppose the
motion, arguing that it is untimely and that “Plaintiff
has presented no evidence to support a finding that the
Court's decision [on the merits of the summary judgment
motion] was erroneous.” [Dkt. No. 52].
60(b) permits a party to seek relief from a final judgment
for the following limited 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 ...