Burrows v. Nakata et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DARRELL BURROWS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JODI NAKATA, ASHLEY
DUNCAN, and CAROLYN
VETTOR.
Defendants.
2:25-CV-11750-TGB-APP
Hon. Terrence G. Berg
OPINION AND ORDER
CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S
RESPONSES (ECF NOS. 15,
16) AS A MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
AND DENYING THE MOTION
Plaintiff 	Darrell 	Burrows 	is 	an 	inmate 	at 	the 	Cooper 	Street
Correctional 	Facility, 	a 	Michigan 	Department 	of 	Corrections 	prison
located in Jackson, Michigan. In June 2025, Burrows filed a pro se civil
rights 	complaint 	under 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1983 	against 	Defendants 	Jodi
Nakara, 	Ashley 	Duncan, 	and 	Carolyn 	Vettor, 	in 	their 	individual
capacities. ECF No. 1. He alleged that Defendants acted with deliberate
indifference by denying his requests to schedule dental and optometry
appointments. ECF No. 1, PageID.3. The Court dismissed his Complaint
on October 9, 2025, for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. ECF No. 13. 	See also 	28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A.
Before the Court are two pleadings submitted by Burrows that
appear to challenge the Court’s dismissal order and seek relief under
Case 2:25-cv-11750-TGB-APP ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/06/25 Page 1 of 3

2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3). See ECF Nos. 15, 16. The Court
will therefore construe both documents together as a motion for relief
from 	judgment 	under 	Rule 	60(b). 	For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	below,
Burrows’s motion is DENIED.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a court to relieve a
party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for a number of 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.
“The 	party 	seeking 	relief 	under 	Rule 	60(b) 	bears 	the 	burden 	of
establishing 	the 	grounds 	for 	such 	relief 	by 	clear 	and 	convincing
evidence.” Info-Hold, Inc. v. Sound Merch., Inc., 538 F.3d 448, 454 (6th
Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
As an initial matter, Burrows contends that Rule 60(b)(3) entitles
him to relief. ECF No. 15, PageID.39. However, he has not alleged any
Case 2:25-cv-11750-TGB-APP ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/06/25 Page 2 of 3

3
facts showing fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing
party. Nor has he shown that relief under any other subsection of Rule
60(b) is appropriate. Burrows does not point to any error in the dismissal
order aside from his mere disagreement with the Court’s holding. See
ECF Nos. 15, 16. The Court has already considered Burrows’s arguments
and determined they lack merit. ECF No. 13. Although Burrows may
disagree with this Court’s interpretation of the law and ultimate ruling,
such “[g]eneralized disagreement from an unhappy or defeated litigant,
however heartfelt, is insufficient to obtain relief under Rule 60(b).”
Wilson v. Randstad USA, No. 3:21-cv-00151, 2021 WL 6882143, at *2
(M.D. Tenn. June 9, 2021) (citing Jinks v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 250 F.3d
381, 387 (6th Cir. 2001)). Burrows therefore is not entitled to relief.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff Darrell Burrows’s motion
for relief from judgment. This case remains closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 6, 2025 /s/Terrence G. Berg
HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-11750-TGB-APP ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/06/25 Page 3 of 3