Taylor v. Warden Marion Correctional Institution
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS 13 AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT 10 . Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 2-7-2017. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
Case No. 3:16cv398
JIM BUNTING, WARDEN,
Marion Correctional Institution
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS (DOC. #13) AND
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS(DOC#12) DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM JUDGMENT (DOC. #10)
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. #13), filed
January 17, 2017, to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. #12) filed January
4, 2017. The Court has conducted a de novo review of all filings in this matter and finds the
Objections (Doc. #13) not to be well-founded and OVERRULES same, ADOPTING the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. #12) DENYING Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from
Judgment (Doc. #10) .
In so ruling, this Court finds, as did the Magistrate Judge, that the Grounds for Relief
asserted in the Petitioner’s Motion (Doc.#10) were not well founded. Petitioner was not diligent in
proceeding pro se. Petitioner at the time of the Report and Recommendations was represented by
counsel who made the decision not to object. Petitioner waited more than two months from the
Court’s notice that he needed to discharge counsel in order to proceed pro se before taking such
Therefore, this Court DENIES the Petitioner’s Motion (Doc. #10) for Relief from Judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 7, 2017
s/THOMAS M. ROSE
JUDGE THOMAS M. ROSE
United States District Court
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?