USA v. Lewis, 3:08-cr-175. (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20180104e25
Visitors: 24
Filed: Jan. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 03, 2018
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 281) AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND RULE 60(B)(4) LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION MOTION (DOC. 278) THOMAS M. ROSE , District Judge . This case is before the Court on the Objections (Doc. 283) filed by Defendant Jeremy E. Lewis ("Defendant") to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations ("Report") (Doc. 281). In the Report, Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz recommended that the Court deny Defendant's Motion to Amend Rule 60(b)(4) Lack of S
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 281) AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND RULE 60(B)(4) LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION MOTION (DOC. 278) THOMAS M. ROSE , District Judge . This case is before the Court on the Objections (Doc. 283) filed by Defendant Jeremy E. Lewis ("Defendant") to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations ("Report") (Doc. 281). In the Report, Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz recommended that the Court deny Defendant's Motion to Amend Rule 60(b)(4) Lack of Su..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 281) AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND RULE 60(B)(4) LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION MOTION (DOC. 278)
THOMAS M. ROSE, District Judge.
This case is before the Court on the Objections (Doc. 283) filed by Defendant Jeremy E. Lewis ("Defendant") to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations ("Report") (Doc. 281). In the Report, Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz recommended that the Court deny Defendant's Motion to Amend Rule 60(b)(4) Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Motion (Doc. 278). Defendant filed Objections to the Report, which is now ripe for review.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court finds that the Objections (Docs. 283) filed by Defendant are not well-taken and are hereby OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 281) in its entirety and therefore DENIES Defendant's Motion to Amend Rule 60(b)(4) Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Motion (Doc. 278). Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, the Court denies Defendant a certificate of appealability and certifies to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be objectively frivolous and therefore should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
