Wright v. Warden Lebanon Corr
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS 60 , ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 58 , DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO REOPEN JUDGMENT 56 . Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 8-29-2017. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
TIMOTHY D. WRIGHT,
Case No. 3:02-cv-63
Judge Thomas M. Rose
HARRY RUSSELL, Warden,
Lebanon Correctional Institution,
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOC. 60), ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 58), DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO REOPEN JUDGMENT (DOC. 56)
This case is before the Court on the Objections (Doc. 60) filed by Petitioner
Recommendations (Doc. 58), which recommended that Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen
Judgment (Doc. 56) be denied as barred by the statute of limitations. As required by 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has made a de novo
review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court finds that Petitioner’s
Objections (Doc. 60) to the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 58) are not well-taken
and they are hereby OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendations (Doc. 58) in its entirety and DENIES Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen
Judgment (Doc. 56). Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion,
the Court also denies any requested certificate of appealability and hereby certifies to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be
objectively frivolous and should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. This case
shall remain terminated on the docket of this Court.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Tuesday, August 29, 2017.
s/Thomas M. Rose
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?