U.S. v. PIKE, 3:07-cr-142 (2012)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20120711b93
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jul. 10, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 10, 2012
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS THOMAS M. ROSE, District Judge. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz (Doc. No. 62), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) expired on June 28, 2012, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS THOMAS M. ROSE, District Judge. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz (Doc. No. 62), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) expired on June 28, 2012, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's M..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THOMAS M. ROSE, District Judge.
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz (Doc. No. 62), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) expired on June 28, 2012, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations.
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Correct Sentence (Doc. No. 61) be, and it hereby is, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to its renewal if certified by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as an appropriate second or successive § 2255 motion.
Source: Leagle
