Parrish v. Warden, Marion Correctional Institution

Filing 44

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.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON WILLIAM A. PARRISH, JR., Petitioner, : - vs - Case No. 3:16-cv-486 District Judge Walter Herbert Rice Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz WARDEN, Marion Correctional Institution, : Respondent. 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 1 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 be denied. 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, 153-55 (1985). 2

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?