Hill v. Miller

S.D. New York

Hill v. Miller

DecidedMarch 3, 2020

Docket1:15-cv-06256

StatusUnknown

This text of Hill v. Miller (Hill v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hill v. Miller, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: a ae a DATE FILED: ad ANTHONY HILL, Plaintiff, . 15-CV-06256 (KMW) -against- ORDER CHRISTOPHER MILLER, Defendant. Se capresso iat ee cae Oe KIMBA M. WOOD, United States District Judge: Anthony Hill’s (“Petitioner”) Rule 60(b)(4) motion to vacate the judgment against him is currently pending before the Court. On February 26, 2020, Petitioner filed a single document containing a reply to Judge Robert Lehrburger’s Amended Report & Recommendation (ECF No. 52); a notice of appeal from the Amended Report & Recommendation; a motion for appointment of counsel on appeal; and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis during his appeal. (ECF No.

The Amended Report & Recommendation from which Petitioner seeks to appeal was not a final order or judgment. Thus, Petitioner’s notice of appeal, motion for appointment of counsel, and motion to proceed in forma pauperis are denied as premature, without prejudice to Petitioner to re-file these documents should this Court deny his pending Rule 60(b)(4) motion. See United States v. Rodgers, 101 F.3d 247, 252 (2d Cir. 1996) (defendant’s “premature” appeal, prior to entry of a final order, was a “nullity” that did not “divest the district court of jurisdiction”).

The merits of Petitioner’s reply to the Amended Report and Recommendation shall be addressed in a forthcoming Opinion. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York March 3 , 2020 Lad. Wr. Wd. KIMBA M. WOOD United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: a ae a DATE FILED: ad ANTHONY HILL, Plaintiff, . 15-CV-06256 (KMW) -against- ORDER CHRISTOPHER MILLER, Defendant. Se capresso iat ee cae Oe KIMBA M. WOOD, United States District Judge: Anthony Hill’s (“Petitioner”) Rule 60(b)(4) motion to vacate the judgment against him is currently pending before the Court. On February 26, 2020, Petitioner filed a single document containing a reply to Judge Robert Lehrburger’s Amended Report & Recommendation (ECF No. 52); a notice of appeal from the Amended Report & Recommendation; a motion for appointment of counsel on appeal; and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis during his appeal. (ECF No.

The Amended Report & Recommendation from which Petitioner seeks to appeal was not a final order or judgment. Thus, Petitioner’s notice of appeal, motion for appointment of counsel, and motion to proceed in forma pauperis are denied as premature, without prejudice to Petitioner to re-file these documents should this Court deny his pending Rule 60(b)(4) motion. See United States v. Rodgers, 101 F.3d 247, 252 (2d Cir. 1996) (defendant’s “premature” appeal, prior to entry of a final order, was a “nullity” that did not “divest the district court of jurisdiction”).

The merits of Petitioner’s reply to the Amended Report and Recommendation shall be addressed in a forthcoming Opinion. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York March 3 , 2020 Lad. Wr. Wd. KIMBA M. WOOD United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hill v. Miller, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-miller-nysd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack