Leatherberry v. Pugh
- Michael Davis
- 0:22-cv-02699
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Leatherberry v. Pugh, Judge Davis adopted a recommendation, denied the petition and relief motion, dismissed the case, and denied a certificate of appealability.
Robert Earl Leatherberry’s petition and motion for relief were denied, the case was dismissed, and no certificate of appealability was issued.
What happened
Leatherberry v. Pugh concerned Robert Earl Leatherberry’s petition seeking relief from custody. He represented himself. The court considered Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright’s November 1, 2022, report and recommendation, and no timely objections were filed.
On January 30, 2023, Leatherberry filed a motion asking the court to reconsider what he called the report and recommendation’s judgment. The court said that motion could not be made under the rule he cited because a report and recommendation is not a final judgment. The court also said that, even treating the filing as an objection, it was late and did not identify any specific disagreement with the recommendation.
Judge Michael J. Davis adopted the report and recommendation, denied Leatherberry’s petition and motion for relief, dismissed the case, and directed that no certificate of appealability be issued.
The detailed version
- Leatherberry v. Pugh · No. 0:22-cv-02699
- Michael Davis
- Feb. 2, 2023
Background
Robert Earl Leatherberry, who was representing himself, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Jesse Pugh, identified as the warden. The matter came before the court on Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright’s November 1, 2022, report and recommendation. The opinion states that Leatherberry did not file objections within the period allowed by the District of Minnesota’s local rules.
Motion for Relief
On January 30, 2023, Leatherberry filed a motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. He asked the court to reconsider what he described as the report and recommendation’s judgment. The court held that Rule 60 did not apply because a report and recommendation is not a final judgment, order, or proceeding.
The court considered whether to treat the motion more broadly as an objection to the report and recommendation. It rejected that approach for two stated reasons: the filing came well after the 14-day objection deadline, and Leatherberry did not identify any part of the recommendation with which he disagreed. Instead, according to the court, he raised new arguments.
Ruling
The court adopted the report and recommendation, denied Leatherberry’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, denied his motion for relief, and dismissed the case. It also ordered that a certificate of appealability would not be issued. The opinion does not discuss the underlying claims or explain the report and recommendation’s reasoning. This summary therefore treats the order as a procedural ruling because the order resolved the matter through adoption of the recommendation and procedural rejection of the motion without addressing the petition’s merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.