Hill v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution, 2:11-cv-755. (2016)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20160516b16
Visitors: 3
Filed: May 13, 2016
Latest Update: May 13, 2016
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JAMES L. GRAHAM , District Judge . On April 22, 2016, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Petitioner's Rule 60(b)(6) and 60(d)(3) Motion for Relief from Judgment (" Petitioner's Motion "), ECF No. 39, be denied. Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 42. Although the parties were advised of the right to object to the Judge's Report and Recommendation, and of the consequences of failing to do so, no objections have been filed. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No.
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JAMES L. GRAHAM , District Judge . On April 22, 2016, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Petitioner's Rule 60(b)(6) and 60(d)(3) Motion for Relief from Judgment (" Petitioner's Motion "), ECF No. 39, be denied. Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 42. Although the parties were advised of the right to object to the Judge's Report and Recommendation, and of the consequences of failing to do so, no objections have been filed. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 4..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
JAMES L. GRAHAM, District Judge.
On April 22, 2016, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Petitioner's Rule 60(b)(6) and 60(d)(3) Motion for Relief from Judgment ("Petitioner's Motion"), ECF No. 39, be denied. Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 42. Although the parties were advised of the right to object to the Judge's Report and Recommendation, and of the consequences of failing to do so, no objections have been filed.
The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 42, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Petitioner's Motion, ECF No. 39, is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
