From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garrett v. Presesnik

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jun 20, 2012
CASE NUMBER: 09-11076 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 20, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NUMBER: 09-11076

06-20-2012

D'Juan Garrett Plaintiff, v. John Presesnik, Defendant.


HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

MAG. JUDGE PAUL KOMIVES


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On May 4, 2012 Magistrate Judge Komives issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc.20], recommending that Petitioner's Motion for Relief Under 60(B)(6) [Doc. 18] be denied. Neither party filed objections within the fourteen day period pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Thus, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. Defendant's Motion is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED.

______________

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this document was served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on June 20, 2012.

Linda Vertriest

Deputy Clerk


Summaries of

Garrett v. Presesnik

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jun 20, 2012
CASE NUMBER: 09-11076 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 20, 2012)
Case details for

Garrett v. Presesnik

Case Details

Full title:D'Juan Garrett Plaintiff, v. John Presesnik, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Jun 20, 2012

Citations

CASE NUMBER: 09-11076 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 20, 2012)

Citing Cases

Halley v. Warden, Ross Corr. Inst.

Because the time to file a Notice of Appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional, the Court cannot grant…

Fields v. Bergh

He fails to satisfy the first requirement of Rule 4(a)(6). See, e.g., Garrett v. Presenik, No. 2:09-CV-11076,…