Lenoir v. Warden Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
| Lamar Lenoir |
| Warden Southern Ohio Correctional Facility |
| 3:2009cv00286 |
| July 27, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Dayton Office |
| MONTGOMERY |
| Sharon L Ovington |
| Walter H Rice |
| None |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
103
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. 98 ) IN ITS ENTIRETY; PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO SAID JUDICIAL FILING (DOCS. 101 ) OVERRULED; DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON HIS APPEAL OF THE COURT'S DENIAL OF HIS FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (DOC. 95 ) Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 12/19/2012. (kf)
|
|
Filing
100
ORDER denying 88 Motion ; adopting Report and Recommendations re 91 Report and Recommendations.; denying 92 Motion for Certificate of Appealability; adopting Report and Recommendations re 93 Report and Recommendations. Based upon the reas oning and citations of authority set forth by the United States Magistrate Judge, in his Report and Recommendation filed November 2, 2012 and (Doc. 91 ) and his Supplemental Report and Recommendation filed November 6, 2012 (Doc. 93 ), as well as up on a thorough de novo review of this Court's file and the applicable law, this Court adopts the aforesaid Report and Recommendations in their entirety, and overrules Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 99 ) thereto. Plaintiffs motions for a certi ficate of appealability to appeal the denial of his motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (Docs. 88 , 92 ) are denied. The captionedcase is hereby ordered to remain terminated.Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 12/4/2012. (kf)
|
|
Filing
98
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - re 95 THAT PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR LEAVETO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL (DOC. 95 ) BE DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 12/10/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 11/21/12. (kje1)
|
|
Filing
97
ORDER GRANTING NUNC PRO TUNC PETITIONERS DUPLICATIVE MOTIONS FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME (DOCS. 94 , 96 ). - This matter is before the Court upon Petitioners duplicative motions for an extension of time to file his objections to the Courts Report and Recommendation (doc. 91 ) -- which were due on November 19, 2012. Docs. 94 , 96 . For good cause shown, Petitioners motions (docs. 94 , 96 ) are GRANTED NUNC PRO TUNC. Petitioner is afforded until December 3, 2012 to file his objections to the Courts Report and Recommendation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 11/20/2012. (kf)
|
|
Filing
93
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PRO SE PETITIONER'S DUPLICATIVE MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY TO APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS RULE 60(B) MOTIONS (DOC. 92 ) BE DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 11/23/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 11/6/12. (cib1)
|
|
Filing
91
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT PRO SE PETITIONERS MOTION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY TO APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS RULE 60(b) MOTION (DOC. 88 ) BE DENIED. Here, it is clearly established by the United States Supreme Court that a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion such as Petitioners seeking leave to present newly discovered evidence in support of a claim previously denied must be treated as a second or successive habeas petition. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-32 (2005). Accordingly, P etitioner must have authorization by the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3) before this Court may consider Petitioners new claims. See id. As reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioners motion for a certificate of appealability to appeal the denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion (doc. 88 ) be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 11/19/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 11/02/2012. (kf)
|
|
Filing
84
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. 77 ) OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE IN THEIR ENTIRETY; PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO SAID JUDICIAL FILING (DOCS. 82 , 83 ) OVERRULED; PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R.CIV. P. 60(b) (DOC. 72 ) DENIED; CAPTIONED CAUSE REMAINS TERMINATED. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 9/28/2012. (kje1)
|
|
Filing
77
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Lamar Lenoir - the Court RECOMMENDS that Petitioners motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (doc. 72 ) be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 7/19/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 07/02/12. (pb1)
|
|
Filing
76
ORDER TO THE CLERK OF COURT. The Clerk is therefore ORDERED to mail the digital recording back to Petitioner. June Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 06/29/2012. (kf)
|
|
Filing
73
ORDER Doc. 72 Petitioners motion is DENIED AS MOOT because leave is not required to file a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) motion. On or before July 5, 2012, Petitioner is ORDERED to produce: 1. A copy of said audio confession from the States primary wit ness Kirby Peterson, doc. 72 at Page ID 2295; and 2. An affidavit explaining the circumstances in which Petitioner obtained said audioconfession, including details such as when the audio recording was originally made; and when Petitioner was given the audio recording, and by whom.Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 06/04/2012. (kf)
|
|
Filing
70
ORDER - On April 18, 2012, pro se Petitioner filed a motion requesting the Court to rule on his motion for certificate of appealability, motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and motion for an evidentiary hearing. Doc. 69 . Because the Court has already ruled on said motions, Petitioner's motion (doc. 69 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 04/19/2012. (kf)
|
|
Filing
66
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS - denying 51 ; granting in part and denying in part 52 ; denying 53 ; granting in part and denying in part 56 ; denying 60 ; denying 61 ; denying 62 . Recognizing that judgment was entered in favor of Respondent, the case is complete. Accordingly, Petitioner is directed not to file any more motions. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 3/30/12. (kje1)
|
|
Filing
39
DECISION AND ENTRY - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 37 ) is DENIED as moot; 2. Petitioner's Motion to Clarify (Doc. 38 ) is GRANTED; 3. Petitioner's Objections (Doc. 36 ) are pending b efore the United States District Judge; 4. Petitioner's Motion to Substitute Respondent (Doc. 35 ) is GRANTED with the case caption remaining the same; and 5. The case remains pending on the docket of this Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L Ovington on 2/24/11. (cib1)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Lenoir v. Warden Southern Ohio Correctional Facility | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Lamar Lenoir | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: Warden Southern Ohio Correctional Facility | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
