The opinion of the court was delivered by: David G. Larimer United States District Judge
Before the Court is plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Orders dismissing these actions, pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Orders of dismissal and judgment were entered in each of these cases on May 17 and 18, 2006. In 06-CV-6111, 06-CV-6112, 06-CV-6113, 06-CV-6114, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on May 23, 2006. In 06-CV-6134, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on May 25, 2006.*fn1
Rule 60(b) provides for relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding when, for example, there has been a mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, or newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time. According to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals:
Rule 60(b) sets forth the grounds on which a court, in its discretion, can rescind or amend a final judgment or order. ... Properly applied, Rule 60(b) strikes a balance between serving the ends of justice and preserving the finality of judgments. . . . In other words it should be broadly construed to do "substantial justice," . . . , yet final judgments should not "be lightly reopened." . . . The Rule may not be used as a substitute for a timely appeal. . . . Since 60(b) allows extraordinary judicial relief, it is invoked only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.
Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986) (citations omitted).
Nothing in plaintiff's motion for reconsideration warrants relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Plaintiff does not demonstrate that there has been a mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, or newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time, nor does he show that his claims should be reopened in the interest of justice. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is hereby denied.