From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moore v. Mitchell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
Mar 9, 2015
Case No. 1:00-cv-023 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 1:00-cv-023

03-09-2015

LEE E. MOORE, Petitioner, v. BETTY MITCHELL, Warden Respondent.



Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

DECISION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This capital habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner's Objections (Doc. No. 186) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 183). After reviewing those Objections the Court recommitted the matter to the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 187), he filed a Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 190), and Petitioner has filed another set of Objections (Doc. No. 193).

The underlying Motion involved is Moore's Amended Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (Doc. No. 177). Because it is a post-judgment motion, it is deemed referred to the Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), requiring a report and recommendations. The Magistrate Judge recommended, separately for the different Grounds for Relief, that the Motion should be denied (Doc. No. 183, PageID 11031, 11033; Doc. No. 190, PageID 11097).

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court must review de novo any part of a Magistrate Judge's proposed disposition that is properly objected to. Having done so, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations and the Supplemental Report and Recommendations in their entirety. Petitioner's Amended Motion for Relief from Judgment is DENIED. However, the Court finds reasonable jurists could disagree with this Court's application of Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1309, 182 L. Ed. 2d 72 (2012), and Trevino v. Thaler, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1911, 185 L. Ed. 2d 1044 (2013), and with this Court's application of the law of the case doctrine in resolving that issue and GRANTS Petitioner a certificate of appealability on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/_________

Judge Susan J. Dlott

United States District Court


Summaries of

Moore v. Mitchell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
Mar 9, 2015
Case No. 1:00-cv-023 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2015)
Case details for

Moore v. Mitchell

Case Details

Full title:LEE E. MOORE, Petitioner, v. BETTY MITCHELL, Warden Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

Date published: Mar 9, 2015

Citations

Case No. 1:00-cv-023 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2015)