From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Akemon v. Brunsman

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Apr 17, 2008
C-1-06-166 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 17, 2008)

Summary

considering the denial of the petitioner's motion for a stay as properly raised in Rule 60(b) proceedings

Summary of this case from Hillman v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst.

Opinion

C-1-06-166.

April 17, 2008


ORDER


The matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 27) recommending that Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment (doc. no. 20) be denied and that further proceedings upon the Motion are not warranted under the circumstances of this case.

The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge has accurately set forth the applicable law and has properly applied it to the particular facts of this case. Accordingly, in the absence of any objection by petitioner, this Court accepts the Report as uncontroverted.

The Court accepts the factual findings and legal reasoning of the Magistrate Judge and hereby ADOPTS AND INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE into this Order his Report and Recommendation dated March 1, 2008 (doc. No. 27).

Petitioner's Motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) for relief from judgment (doc. no. 20) is DENIED and this matter is TERMINATED on the docket of this Court.

A certificate of appealability shall not issue with respect to the denial of petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment because petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right remediable in this federal habeas corpus proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed.R.App.P. 22(b). Petitioner has not shown that reasonable jurists could debate whether this claim should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were "adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 323-324 (2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000)) (in turn quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n. 4 (1983)).

With respect to any application by petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the Court CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in "good faith," and, therefore, DENIES petitioner leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis upon a showing of financial necessity. See Fed.R.App.P. 24(a); Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Exhibit


Summaries of

Akemon v. Brunsman

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Apr 17, 2008
C-1-06-166 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 17, 2008)

considering the denial of the petitioner's motion for a stay as properly raised in Rule 60(b) proceedings

Summary of this case from Hillman v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst.
Case details for

Akemon v. Brunsman

Case Details

Full title:La'MON AKEMON, Petitioner v. TIMOTHY BRUNSMAN, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

Date published: Apr 17, 2008

Citations

C-1-06-166 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 17, 2008)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Harris

L 2077654, *2 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2005) (deeming Rule 60(b) motion a successive habeas petition where…

United States v. Soto-Valdez

r a proper motion under Rule 60(b)." Id. at *4 (footnote added); see also West v. Schriro, 2008 WL 4693393,…