U.S. v. CLARK, 3:10-cv-406 (2012)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20120806811
Visitors: 13
Filed: Aug. 03, 2012
Latest Update: Aug. 03, 2012
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT DEFENDANT'S RULE 60(b) MOTION (DOC. 1252) BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE * * * ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOC. 1254) MICHAEL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant's pro se Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to vacate Judge Rice's July 13, 2012 Order Adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (doc. 1248). Doc. 1252. Defendant's motion is now moot because after Defendant filed this moti
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT DEFENDANT'S RULE 60(b) MOTION (DOC. 1252) BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE * * * ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOC. 1254) MICHAEL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant's pro se Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to vacate Judge Rice's July 13, 2012 Order Adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (doc. 1248). Doc. 1252. Defendant's motion is now moot because after Defendant filed this motio..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT DEFENDANT'S RULE 60(b) MOTION (DOC. 1252) BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
* * *
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOC. 1254)
MICHAEL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's pro se Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to vacate Judge Rice's July 13, 2012 Order Adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (doc. 1248). Doc. 1252. Defendant's motion is now moot because after Defendant filed this motion, Judge Rice vacated his July 13, 2012 Order by notation. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant's Rule 60(b) motion (doc. 1252) be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Also before the Court is Defendant's motion to appoint Attorney Jeffery Slyman to his case. Doc. 1254. The Court has already denied Defendant's request to appoint counsel twice in these proceedings. See doc. 1221, 1223. The circumstances have not changed. First, Defendant has not demonstrated that he is indigent. Second, even if he were to make such a showing, there is no entitlement to appointed counsel in a § 2255 case unless an evidentiary hearing is held, and no evidentiary hearing has been ordered in this case. See Foster v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 515 F.Supp. 541, 546 (S.D. Ohio 1981) (Rice, J.). Accordingly, Defendant's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
