AYERS v. U.S., 2:06-cr-129(3). (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20150710b55
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jul. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 09, 2015
Summary: ORDER ALGENON L. MARBLEY , District Judge . On May 11, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge denied Petitioner's Motion to Authorize Discovery, ECF No. 1309. Opinion and Order, ECF 1339. This matter is now before the Court on Petitioner's request for reconsideration of that Opinion and Order. Request for Reconsideration, ECF No. 1343. In denying Petitioner's request for discovery, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Petitioner's claims can be resolved on the record already before
Summary: ORDER ALGENON L. MARBLEY , District Judge . On May 11, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge denied Petitioner's Motion to Authorize Discovery, ECF No. 1309. Opinion and Order, ECF 1339. This matter is now before the Court on Petitioner's request for reconsideration of that Opinion and Order. Request for Reconsideration, ECF No. 1343. In denying Petitioner's request for discovery, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Petitioner's claims can be resolved on the record already before ..
More
ORDER
ALGENON L. MARBLEY, District Judge.
On May 11, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge denied Petitioner's Motion to Authorize Discovery, ECF No. 1309. Opinion and Order, ECF 1339. This matter is now before the Court on Petitioner's request for reconsideration of that Opinion and Order. Request for Reconsideration, ECF No. 1343.
In denying Petitioner's request for discovery, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Petitioner's claims can be resolved on the record already before this Court, without the need for additional discovery, and that Petitioner's request for discovery constitutes the type of fishing expedition that is disfavored under the provisions of Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the United States District Courts. See generally Opinion and Order, ECF 1339. See also Stanford v. Parker, 266 F.3d 442, 460 (6th Cir. 2001); Williams v. Bagley, 380 F.3d 932, 974 (6th Cir. 2004). Nothing stated in Petitioner's Request for Reconsideration persuades this Court that the decision of the Magistrate Judge was either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
Accordingly, Petitioner's Request for Reconsideration, ECF No. 1343, is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
