U.S. v. NELSON, 1:08-cr-069. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20141103890
Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 30, 2014
Summary: ORDER SUSAN J. DLOTT, Chief District Judge. This 2255 matter is before the Court on Defendant's Objections (Doc. No. 123) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 122) recommending denial of Defendant's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)(Doc. No. 121). Because the instant Motion was filed post-judgment, it is deemed referred to the Magistrate Judge for report and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(3). As required by Fed. R. Civ
Summary: ORDER SUSAN J. DLOTT, Chief District Judge. This 2255 matter is before the Court on Defendant's Objections (Doc. No. 123) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 122) recommending denial of Defendant's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)(Doc. No. 121). Because the instant Motion was filed post-judgment, it is deemed referred to the Magistrate Judge for report and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(3). As required by Fed. R. Civ...
More
ORDER
SUSAN J. DLOTT, Chief District Judge.
This § 2255 matter is before the Court on Defendant's Objections (Doc. No. 123) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 122) recommending denial of Defendant's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)(Doc. No. 121). Because the instant Motion was filed post-judgment, it is deemed referred to the Magistrate Judge for report and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(3).
As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has reviewed de novo those portions of the Report to which objection has been made. Having done so, the Court concludes that there was no manifest error in the Magistrate Judge's determination that Nelson's second-in-time Motion to Vacate under § 2255 (Doc. No. 116) was a second or successive § 2255 motion within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) and therefore requires a certificate from a panel of the Sixth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 before this Court may consider it. Under those circumstances, circuit precedent requires that the second § 2255 motion be transferred to the court of appeals for consideration. In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45 (6th Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, Nelson's Objections (Doc. No. 123) are OVERRULED, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations are ADOPTED, and Defendant's Motion to Alter the Judgment is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
