Coleman v. Kellogg's Co.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
DWAINE COLEMAN,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
v. 	) 	No. 23-cv-02612-SHM
)
)
)
)
)
KELLOGG’S CO.,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	Plaintiff 	Dwaine 	Coleman’s 	Motion 	for
Reconsideration of the Court’s August 14, 2025 Order and Judgment
adopting 	Magistrate 	Judge 	Annie 	T. 	Christoff’s 	Report 	and
Recommendation. 	(ECF 	No. 	100.) 	The 	Court’s 	Order 	adopted 	the
Report 	and 	Recommendation 	and 	granted 	Defendant’s 	Motion 	for
Summary 	Judgment. 	(ECF 	No. 	96.) 	For 	the 	reasons 	stated 	below,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider is GRANTED.
I. 	Background
The substantive factual background is not relevant for
purposes of this Order. 	On May 7, 2025, Defendant filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 84) That Motion was
referred to Magistrate Judge Annie T. Christoff. (ECF No. 86.)
Case 2:23-cv-02612-SHM-atc Document 112 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 6
PageID <pageID>

2
On July 31, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered her Report and
Recommendation (the “R&R”). (ECF No. 96.) The R&R recommended
that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. (Id.)
Plaintiff made no timely objections. 	On August 14, 2025, the
Court entered an Order and corresponding Judgment adopting the
R&R in full. (ECF Nos. 97 & 98.) On August 15, 2025, Plaintiff
filed his objections to the R&R. (ECF No. 99.) On August 22,
2025, Plaintiff filed the pending Motion for Reconsideration.
(ECF No. 100.)
II. 	Law
“Motions 	for 	reconsideration 	generally 	are 	construed 	as
motions 	to 	alter 	or 	amend 	the 	judgment 	under 	Federal 	Rule 	of
Civil 	Procedure 	59(e).” 	Waid 	v. 	Snyder, 	No. 	18-1960, 	2019 	WL
4121023, at *1 (6th Cir. Feb. 19, 2019); see also Moody v. Pepsi-
Cola 	Metro. 	Bottling 	Co., 	915 	F.2d 	201, 	206 	(6th 	Cir. 	1990)
(construing a motion for reconsideration as a Rule 59(e) motion
to alter or amend a judgment).
What Plaintiff appears to seek, however, is vacatur of the
Court’s 	August 	14, 	2025 Order 	and 	Judgment 	on 	the 	ground 	that
his 	timely 	objections 	to 	the 	R&R 	were 	not 	properly 	considered.
(ECF No. 100.) Under Rule 60(b), the Court “may relieve a party
or 	its 	legal 	representative 	from 	a 	final 	judgment, 	order, 	or
Case 2:23-cv-02612-SHM-atc Document 112 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 6
PageID <pageID>

3
proceeding” for reasons of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect,” or “any other reason that justifies relief.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (6). 	Other courts have granted relief
in analogous situations. 	In Cardenas-Meneses v. United States,
2016 	WL 	10733961 	(S.D. 	Tex. 	Oct. 	19, 	2016), 	a 	district 	court
granted 	a 	plaintiff’s 	motion 	for 	reconsideration 	under 	Rule 	60
when 	the 	plaintiff 	showed 	that 	he 	did 	not 	have 	the 	opportunity
to timely object to the court’s adoption of a Magistrate Judge’s
report and recommendation recommending dismissal of his case.
III. Analysis
The Magistrate Judge’s R&R was filed on July 31, 2025. (ECF
No. 96) The “Notice” section on the final page of the R&R reads:
“Within 	fourteen 	(14) 	days 	after 	being 	served 	with 	a 	copy 	of
this 	report 	and 	recommendation 	disposition, 	a 	party 	may 	serve
and 	file 	written 	objections 	to 	the 	proposed 	findings 	and
recommendations.” 	(ECF 	No. 	96 	at 	19.) 	That 	notice 	accords 	with
Federal 	Rule 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	72(b)(2), 	which 	states 	that
“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.” 	Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
On 	August 	14, 	2025, 	the 	Court 	entered 	its 	Order 	adopting
the 	R&R 	in 	full 	and 	granted 	summary 	judgment 	because 	“no
Case 2:23-cv-02612-SHM-atc Document 112 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 6
PageID <pageID>

4
objections to the Report ha[d] been filed” within fourteen days.
(ECF No. 97.) Final judgment was entered the same day. (ECF No.
98.) On August 15, 2025, one day after the Court had entered its
Order and Judgment, Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R. (ECF
No. 99.) On August 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed the pending Motion
for Reconsideration, arguing that the Court had adopted the R&R
prematurely and that his objections should be considered timely.
(EF No. 100.)
In his Motion, Plaintiff argues that the deadline to respond
should 	be 	extended 	to 	August 	15 	because 	he 	receives 	notice 	of
court documents by traditional mail rather than electronically.
(Id.) Plaintiff does not say in his Motion what day he received
the 	R&R. 	(Id.) 	Plaintiff 	does 	say, 	however, 	that 	there 	was 	a
seven-day gap between the Court’s August 14, 2025 Order adopting
the R&R and Plaintiff’s receipt of that Order in the mail. (Id.)
Plaintiff makes these representations under penalty of perjury.
(Id.)
A 	review 	of 	the 	CM 	ECF 	filing 	system 	shows 	that 	Plaintiff
did not receive electronic notification of the R&R or the Court’s
Order 	dismissing 	the 	case. 	That 	is 	consistent 	with 	the
representations in Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Id.)
Both Rule 72(b)(2) and the R&R state that the deadline to object
is 14 days “after being served with a copy” of the disposition.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) and ECF No. 96 at 19. 	Although Plaintiff
Case 2:23-cv-02612-SHM-atc Document 112 Filed 02/19/26 Page 4 of 6
PageID <pageID>

5
does not state the day he received the physical copy of the R&R,
the 	deadline 	need 	only 	be 	extended 	by 	one 	day 	for 	Plaintiff’s
objections 	to 	be 	considered 	timely. 	Rule 	6(d) 	provides 	that
“when a party may or must act within a specified time after being
served and service is made [by mail]…3 days are added after the
period would otherwise expire.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
Because 	it 	is 	likely 	that 	Plaintiff 	received 	his 	physical
copy 	of 	the 	R&R 	at 	least 	one 	day 	after 	the 	Court 	entered 	its
Order, 	Plaintiff’s 	objections 	likely 	came 	within 	the 	14-day
period 	he 	had 	to 	file 	them. 	To 	prevent 	the 	possibility 	of 	a
mistake 	of 	law 	and 	to 	avoid 	injustice 	of 	the 	kind 	a 	motion 	to
reconsider 	is 	designed 	to 	prevent, 	the 	Court 	concludes 	that
Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R are timely, and the Court will
consider them when reviewing the R&R. 	Based on Rule 60(b), the
Court 	grants 	the 	requested 	relief 	and 	vacates 	its 	August 	14,
2025 Order adopting the R&R and the corresponding Judgment.
Rule 	72(b)(2) 	also 	provides 	that 	“a 	party 	may 	respond 	to
another 	party's 	objections 	within 	14 	days 	after 	being 	served
with 	a 	copy.” 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	72(b)(2). 	The 	Defendant, 	which
receives 	electronic 	notifications, 	has 	14 	days 	after 	the 	entry
of 	this 	Order 	to 	respond, 	if 	it 	wishes, 	to 	Plaintiff’s
objections.
Case 2:23-cv-02612-SHM-atc Document 112 Filed 02/19/26 Page 5 of 6
PageID <pageID>

6
IV. 	Conclusion
Movant's Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED as follows:
A. The Court's August 14, 2025 Order Adopting the Magistrate
Judge’s 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	(ECF 	No. 	97) 	is
VACATED;
B. The 	Court’s 	August 	14, 	2025 	Judgment 	(ECF 	No. 	98) 	is
VACATED;
C. Defendant 	has 	14 	days 	from 	the 	entry 	of 	this 	Order 	to
respond 	to 	Plaintiff’s 	objections 	filed 	on 	August 	15,
2025 (ECF No. 99); and
D. Plaintiff’s Motion requesting that the Court rule on his
Motion 	for 	Reconsideration 	(ECF 	No. 	107) 	is 	DENIED 	AS
MOOT.
So ordered this 19th day of February, 2026.
/s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:23-cv-02612-SHM-atc Document 112 Filed 02/19/26 Page 6 of 6
PageID <pageID>