Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. DAVIS, 3:10-CR-53-1. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. Tennessee Number: infdco20120503c17 Visitors: 17
Filed: May 02, 2012
Latest Update: May 02, 2012
Summary: ORDER THOMAS A. VARLAN, District Judge. This criminal case is before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation, entered by United States Magistrate Judge C. Clifford Shirley, Jr., on March 28, 2012 (the "R&R") [Doc. 395]. There have been no timely objections to the R&R and enough time has passed since the filing of the R&R to treat any objections as having been waived. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Fed. R. Crim. P. 51. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Shir
More

ORDER

THOMAS A. VARLAN, District Judge.

This criminal case is before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation, entered by United States Magistrate Judge C. Clifford Shirley, Jr., on March 28, 2012 (the "R&R") [Doc. 395]. There have been no timely objections to the R&R and enough time has passed since the filing of the R&R to treat any objections as having been waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Fed. R. Crim. P. 51. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Shirley recommends that the defendant's Motion to File Notice of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc to: May 10, 2011 [Doc. 385] be granted and the defendant's Notice of Appeal [Doc. 384] be filed nunc pro tunc to May 10, 2011; recommends that the defendant's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Doc. 389] be granted and that the defendant be permitted to proceed on appeal without payment of fees or costs; and recommends that the defendant's pro se request [Doc. 388] for the appointment of counsel be denied as moot.

After a careful review of the R&R, the Court is in agreement with Magistrate Judge Shirley's recommendations, which the Court adopts and incorporates into its ruling. Thus, the Court ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the R&R [Doc. 395] and GRANTS the defendant's Motion to File Notice of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc to: May 10, 2011 [Doc. 385]; GRANTS the defendant's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Doc. 389], thus permitting the defendant to proceed on appeal without payment of fees or costs; and DENIES as moot the defendant's pro se request [Doc. 388] for the appointment of counsel. It is also ORDERED that the defendant's Notice of Appeal [Doc. 384] be filed nunc pro tunc to May 10, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer