Ajamu v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution

Filing 22

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - This Court is without authority to grant Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to Appeal (Doc. No.21), which should therefore be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 11/25/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 11/8/2013. (kpf1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
ABDUL JARIM AJAMU,
Petitioner,

:

- vs -

Case No. 1:11-cv-474
Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

WARDEN, Chillicothe
Correctional Institution,
:
Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time
to Appeal (Doc. No.21). Since this is a post-judgment motion, it is deemed referred to the
Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), requiring a report and recommendations.
Judgment was entered in this case on July 18, 2012 (Doc. No. 16). Included in Chief
Judge Dlott’s Order adopting the dispositive Report and Recommendations in this case was a
denial of a certificate of appealability and a certificate to the Sixth Circuit that an appeal would
not be taken in objective good faith (Doc. No. 16, PageID 931).
Petitioner filed his Notice of Appeal October 15, 2013, approximately fifteen months
after judgment (Doc. No. 18). The Court has already filed a Deficiency Order with respect to
that Notice because the filing fee of $455 was not tendered (Doc. No. 19). Ajamu now seeks an
extension of time to file the Notice of Appeal, blaming the failure to file on his attorney’s
withdrawal from representation.
Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), a notice of appeal from a district court to the court of
1

appeals in a civil case1 must be filed “within 30 days after the entry of the judgment or order
appealed from”; in this case that time expired August 17, 2012. Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), a
district court may extend the time for filing a notice of appeal if a party moves for that relief not
later than thirty days after the initial time for appeal expires or, in this case, not later than
September 16, 2012. Thus this Court is without authority to grant the relief requested, which
should therefore be DENIED.
The Clerk shall serve a paper copy of this Report on Petitioner. If Petitioner’s counsel
has ceased to represent him in this matter, she must withdraw as trial attorney of record
forthwith.
November 8, 2013.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this Report
and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to seventeen
days because this Report is being served by one of the methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F). Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected
to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendations are based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party=s objections
within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985).

1

Although this case seeks relief from a criminal conviction in state court, habeas corpus cases are classified as
“civil” in the federal courts.

2

3