Duckworth v. Goff

Filing 39

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations 35 ; denying Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Final Judgment 25 .Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 8/9/2012. (Brown, T.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ELNORSH DUCKWORTH

PETITIONER

VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11cv1HSO-JMR

PRESTON GOFF

RESPONDENT

ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL
JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Elnorsh Duckworth’s
[“Duckworth”] Objections [37] to the Report and Recommendations [35] of Chief
United States Magistrate Judge John M. Roper entered in this cause on May 31,
2012. Respondent filed a Notice [38] of Intention Not to File Formal Response to
Petitioner’s Objection on June 15, 2012.1
I. DISCUSSION
A.

Legal Standard
Because an Objection has been filed to the Magistrate’s Report and

Recommendations [37], this Court is required to “make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Rule 8(b) of RULES
GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS; Longmire
v. Gust, 921 F.2d 620, 623 (5th Cir. 1991)(party is “entitled to a de novo review by
1

On January 17, 2012, Respondent Preston Goff filed a Response [26] in
Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Final Judgment pursuant to FED.
R. CIV. P. 60(b) [25].

an Article III Judge as to those issues to which an objection is made”). The Court is
not required, however, to reiterate the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate
Judge, Koetting v. Thompson, 995 F.2d 37, 40 (5th Cir. 1993), nor need it consider
objections which are frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature, Battle v. United
States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
B.

Analysis
In his Objection, Duckworth requests that this Court reconsider its ruling

and not adopt the proposed Report and Recommendations [10]. Obj. [37], at p. 3.
Duckworth seeks reconsideration and adjudication on the merits of his asserted
habeas claims. Id. at pp. 2-3.
The Magistrate Judge considered Duckworth’s Motion for Relief from Final
Judgment pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b), and concluded that Duckworth failed to
present “any basis to warrant relief from the judgment in this case.’” The
Magistrate Judge noted that this Court “may ‘consider on the merits and deny a
60(b) motion filed after a notice of appeal, because the district court’s action is in
furtherance of the appeal.’” Report and Recommendations [35], at p. 3 (quoting
Shepherd v. International Paper Co., 372 F.3d 326, 329 (5th Cir. 2004)).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) states, in part, as follows:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final
judgment, . . . for the following 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
2

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.
FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b).
The Court finds that Duckworth has failed to proffer any evidence or
argument which suggests that one or more of the grounds listed in Rule 60(b)(1)-(5),
is applicable in this case. The cases cited and legal arguments proffered in
Duckworth’s Objections to the Report and Recommendations have previously been
considered by this Court.
To the extent Duckworth’s Motion implicates the catch-all provision
contained in Rule 60(b)(6), extraordinary circumstances, which “rarely occur in the
habeas context,” must be shown in order to reopen a final judgment. Gonzalez v.
Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005); see also Bates v. Denmark, 2011 WL 1498885 *1
(S.D. Miss. Apr. 19, 2011). While Duckworth urges this Court to reconsider its
prior ruling and adoption of the Report and Recommendations, the Court concludes
that, for the same reasons contained in its Order [16] adopting the Report and
Recommendations of Magistrate Judge [10], the dismissal of Duckworth’s § 2254
action as time-barred was proper. The Court is therefore of the opinion that
Duckworth has not demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances exist justifying
relief from the Court’s entry of final judgment.
Based on this review, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendations are well reasoned, and that they correctly find the applicable
3

facts and apply the governing legal standards.
II. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, after thoroughly reviewing the findings in the
Report and Recommendations, in addition to the positions advanced in Duckworth’s
Objections [37] and the relevant legal authorities, the Court finds that Duckworth’s
Objections should be overruled, the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations [35]
entered on May 31, 2012, should be adopted as the findings of the Court, and
Duckworth’s Motion [25] for Relief from Final Judgment pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.
60(b) should be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, Petitioner
Elnorsh Duckworth’s Objections [37] to the Report and Recommendations filed in
this cause on June 14, 2012, are OVERRULED.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Report and
Recommendations [35] of Chief Magistrate Judge John M. Roper entered on May
31, 2012, are adopted as the finding of this Court.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, Petitioner’s Motion
[25] for Relief from Final Judgment filed December 28, 2011, is DENIED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 9th day of August, 2012.

s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4