Opinion
Case No. 5:12-cv-00461-TES-CHW
07-22-2020
WASEEM DAKER, Petitioner, v. Warden CARL HUMPHREY, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court entered judgment dismissing this habeas action in December 2012. (Docs. 6, 8). The Court has subsequently considered and denied two rounds of post-judgment motions, one round litigated in early 2013, and the other, latest round litigated in late 2018. Petitioner Waseem Daker is currently appealing the Court's denial of his latest round of post-judgment motions.
In the midst of his appeal, Petitioner has filed another Rule 60(b)(6) motion, (Doc. 32), as well as a request to file an amended habeas petition. (Docs. 30, 31). Petitioner appears to argue that the Eleventh Circuit's recent decision in Daker v. Warden, 805 F. App'x 648 (11th Cir. 2020), may undermine the Court's 2012 dismissal.
Petitioner's argument does not present the type of "extraordinary circumstances" that warrant relief under Rule 60(b). Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005). Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion (Doc. 32) be DENIED. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's motion to amend (Docs. 30, 31) also be DENIED. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to this Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to file objections, WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. The District Judge will make a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. All other portions of the Recommendation may be reviewed for clear error.
The parties are further notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, "[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice."
SO RECOMMENDED, this 22nd day of July, 2020.
s/ Charles H. Weigle
Charles H. Weigle
United States Magistrate Judge