Dantzler v. U.S.

Full title: HARRY LEE DANTZLER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

Date published: Dec 29, 2005

C/A 2:03-2809-DCN, C/A 4:05-1735-DCN (D.S.C. Dec. 29, 2005)

Opinion

C/A 2:03-2809-DCN, C/A 4:05-1735-DCN.

December 29, 2005

ORDER AND OPINION

DAVID NORTON, District Judge

This matter is before the court pursuant to petitioner's motion for "Relief to Vacate Judgement Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)" which was filed on July 18, 2005.

In his latest motion, Dantzler has raised no issue that has not previously been addressed by this court. Instead, he requests that this court re-review its prior rulings.

Dantzler has specifically requested relief under Fed.R.Civ.P.60(b)(6) from this court's prior judgment entered against him on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition. A motion for relief from judgment based upon "any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment" may not be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. Valero Terrestrial Corp. v. Paige, 211 F.3d 112, 118 (4^th Cir. 2000), Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4^th Cir. 2004), Compton v Alton Steamship Co., 608 F.2d 96, 102 (4^th Cir. 1979). In this instance, petitioner has merely repeated his disagreement with this Court's rulings, thus has established neither a meritorious claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 nor grounds for setting aside the judgment under Rule 60(b)(6).

THEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Relief to Vacate Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) is DENIED. AND IT IS SO ORDERED.