Opinion
Case No. 3:09-cv-60
01-05-2012
RONALD E. HARRIS, III, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Chillicothe Correctional Institution, Respondent.
Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS
(DOC. 31); AND (2) DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION (DOC. 32)
This case is before the Court on Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 31) and Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 32). On October 7, 2011, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings in this case and issued a Report and Recommendations recommending that Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied with prejudice, that all other pending motions be denied as moot and that this case be terminated. (Doc. 22). Thereafter, Petitioner moved for an extension of time to file objections. (Doc. 23). The Magistrate Judge granted Petitioner an extension up to and including November 25, 2011 to file objections. (Doc. 24).
On December 6, 2011, following a de novo review of the record, and noting the absence of any filed objections to the Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, the Court adopted the findings set forth by the Magistrate Judge in their entirety and denied and dismissed Petitioner's petition. (Doc. 29). Thereafter, on or about December 12, 2011, the Clerk of Court received a filing from Petitioner titled "Notice Regarding Objections," which was docketed on December 13, 2011. (Doc. 31). The Court liberally construes such filing as Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
On December 21, 2011, the Clerk of Court received another filing by Petitioner captioned "Review of the Record," which was docketed that same day. (Doc. 32). The initial paragraph of the December 21 filing requests reconsideration, and accordingly, the Court liberally construes the December 21 filing as a motion requesting the Court to consider his Objections and to amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
With regard to Petitioner's Objections, the certificate of service affixed thereto certifies that they were mailed on December 11, 2011, well after the extended deadline for filing Objections. Accordingly, the Objections are untimely. Further, Petitioner's Objections are overly general, non-specific and fail to dispute any specific portion of the Report and Recommendation. See Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir. 2006) (stating that "[o]verly general objections do not satisfy the objection requirement" and that "[t]he objections must be clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious") (citing Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373 (6th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Petitioner's Objections are OVERRULED as untimely, non-specific and otherwise insufficient to satisfy the objection requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Having overruled Petitioner's Objections, Petitioner's motion to amend the judgment (Doc. 32) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge