Welby Thomas Cox, Jr. v. New York Racing Association, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
• Decided: October 2, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00529
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

WELBY THOMAS COX, JR., Case No. 1:25-cv-529 Plaintiff, Barrett, J. Litkovitz, M.J. vs.

NEW YORK RACING ASSOCIATION, et al., REPORT AND Defendants. RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s “Supplemental Clarification and Notice of Conflicts of Interest and Returned Mail” (Doc. 13), which the Court construes as a motion to reconsider the Court’s Order adopting the undersigned’s Report and Recommendation to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Docs. 7 and 9. As a general rule, motions for reconsideration are not favored unless the movant demonstrates: (1) an intervening change of controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Entm’t Prods., Inc. v. Shelby Cnty., 721 F.3d 729, 742 (6th Cir. 2013); Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov’t v. Hotels.com, L.P., 590 F.3d 381, 389 (6th Cir. 2009). The Court has carefully reviewed plaintiff’s motion. In this case, there is no intervening change of controlling law, nor has plaintiff submitted new evidence. The Court is not aware of any need to correct a clear error or to prevent manifest injustice. Instead, plaintiff seeks to “clarify my legal position in this matter” and to notify the Court of a “potential financial conflicts of interest involving the defendants.” (Doc. 13 at PAGIED 72). Plaintiff has not alleged any facts or cited any legal authority which suggests that reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal order and judgment dismissing this case is warranted. If plaintiff wishes to obtain review of the Court’s decision and orders, he must pursue an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 13) be DENIED. IT ISSO RECOMMENDED.

Karen L. Litkovitz □ United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

WELBY THOMAS COX, JR., Case No. 1:25-cv-529 Plaintiff, Barrett, J. Litkovitz, M.J. vs.

NEW YORK RACING ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING THE FILING OF OBJECTIONS TO R&R

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party's objections WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. 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).