MING v. TENNIS et al

Filing 24

ORDER THAT PETITIONER'S INDEPENDENT ACTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL ORDER, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL RODER PURSUANT TO FRCP 60(b) IS DENIED; AND A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY WILL NOT ISSUE, ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE RONALD L. BUCKWALTER ON 5/28/15. 5/29/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PETITIONER, E-MAILED TO COUNSEL, 1 COPY TO LEGAL BIN.(pr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN MING,
Petitioner

v.

CIVIL ACTON NO. 06-CV-1673

FRANKLIN TENNIS, et al.,
Respondents.

FILED
ORDER

AND NOW, this

·-:7

o

~6

I)

J/1/1 A
day of / ' / /'

'1

MAY 2 8 2015
~ICHAEL E. KUNZ, Clerk
Y-

Deo CJ r1c

, 2015, upon coris1~~tation of pro se

Petitioner's "Independent Action for Relief From Final Order, or, Alternatively, Motion for
Relief from Final Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b)," IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Petitioner's Motion is DENIED; and,

2.

A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not

debate the correctness of this court's procedural ruling. See Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S.Ct. 1595
(2000).

RONALD L.

UCKWALTER, J.