Moore v. Mitchell

Filing 195

ORDER ADOPTING 190 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations and the Supplemental Report and Recommendations in their entirety. Petitioner's Amended Motion for Relief from Judgment is DENIED. However, the Co urt finds reasonable jurists could disagree with this Court's application of Martinez v. Ryan and Trevino v. Thaler and with this Court's application of the law of the case doctrine in resolving that issue and GRANTS Petitioner a certificate of appealability.. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 3/9/2015. (jlw1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
LEE E. MOORE,

Petitioner,

Case No. l:00-cv-023

District Judge Susan J. Dlott
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

vs

BETTY MITCHELL, Warden

Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This capital habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner's Objections (Doc. No.
186) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 183). After reviewing
those Objections the Court recommitted the matter to the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 187), he
filed a Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 190), and Petitioner has filed
another set of Objections (Doc. No. 193).

The underlying Motion involved is Moore's Amended Motion for Relief from Judgment

orOrder Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (Doc. No. 177). Because it is a post-judgment motion,

it is deemed referred to the Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), requiring areport and
recommendations. The Magistrate Judge recommended, separately for the different Grounds for

Relief, that the Motion should be denied (Doc. No. 183, PagelD 11031, 11033; Doc. No. 190,
PagelD 11097).

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), the Court must review de novo

any part ofaMagistrate Judge's proposed disposition that is properly objected to. Having done