Opinion
Case No. 5:19-cv-155-TES-CHW
05-06-2020
MIKE REDFORD, Petitioner, v. STATE BAR OF GEORGIA, et al., Respondents.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Mike Redford commenced this action in April 2019. (Doc. 1). This action is largely duplicative of a different action earlier commenced by Mr. Redford in this same Court. See (Doc. 14, p. 5, n.2). In this action, as in his other, duplicative action, the Court issued successive orders for clarification, but eventually entered a judgment of dismissal based upon Mr. Redford's repeated failure to follow the Court's orders. (Doc. 14, pp. 5-6). In this action, as in his earlier, duplicative action, Mr. Redford's filings sought an immediate release from state custody pursuant to the Federal Kidnapping Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1201, (Doc. 6), on the basis that Mr. Redford was "abduct[ed] from out-of-state without extradition," presumably for criminal prosecution in the courts of the State of Georgia. (Doc. 1-1, p. 1).
Although Mr. Redford is currently appealing the Court's judgment of dismissal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, see (Doc. 23), Mr. Redford simultaneously seeks to reopen proceedings before this Court and to seek relief on an entirely different basis: the threat posed by the possibility of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the viral source of Covid-19. (Doc. 25). Mr. Redford's one-page filing is best construed as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but Mr. Redford does not satisfy any of the criteria therein for reopening a final judgment. Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that Mr. Redford's motion be DENIED. See Mahone v. Ray, 326 F.3d 1176, 1180 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining that district courts may "consider on the merits, and deny, a 60(b) motion filed after a notice of appeal").
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to this Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to file objections, WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. The District Judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. All other portions of the Recommendation may be reviewed for clear error.
The parties are further notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, "[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice."
SO RECOMMENDED, this 6th day of May, 2020.
s/ Charles H. Weigle
Charles H. Weigle
United States Magistrate Judge