Parrish v. Warden, Marion Correctional Institution
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ONMOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - Objections to R&R due by 12/5/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 11/21/2017. (kpf)(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
WILLIAM A. PARRISH, JR.,
- vs -
Case No. 3:16-cv-486
District Judge Walter Herbert Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
This case is before the Court on Petitioner=s Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (ECF No. 39). The Magistrate Jude filed a Report and Recommendations
recommending the Motion be denied (ECF No. 41). Mr. Parrish has filed Objections (ECF No.
42) and Judge Rice has recommitted the matter for reconsideration in light of the Objections
(ECF No. 43).
Parrish’s sole claim in the Objections is that the Magistrate Judge was biased against
Parrish because Parrish had filed a complaint of judicial misconduct against the Magistrate Judge
on the same day that his case was dismissed. He infers that the dismissal was in retaliation for
the misconduct complaint (ECF No. 42, PageID 2266). He supports the inference with the
assertion that the dismissal happened on the same day that the Magistrate Judge was served with
the misconduct complaint. Id.
The recorded facts belie these assertions. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal
on May 23, 2017 (ECF No. 30). Judge Rice adopted that Report and dismissed the case on
September 5, 2017 (ECF No. 36). Since Mr. Parrish asserts the Magistrate Judge was served
with his misconduct complaint on October 5, 2017, it is impossible for that complaint to have
motivated a Report nearly five months earlier.
It is therefore again respectfully recommended that the Motion for Relief from Judgment
November 21, 2017.
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 mail. .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,
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?