The opinion of the court was delivered by: James K. Singleton, Jr. United States District Judge
ORDER [Re: Motions at Docket Nos. 21, 22]
At Docket No. 21 David Griffin, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed a document entitled "Objection to Magistrates Report and Recommendations," and at Docket No. 22 a request to appoint counsel. The record indicates that on October 11, 2012, this Court entered its Memorandum Decision and Judgment denying Griffin's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254*fn2 . On November 28, 2012, Griffin filed an untitled document requesting a thirty-day extension to respond.*fn3 Treating Griffin's untitled document at Docket No. 19 as a motion to extend the time to appeal, this Court extended Griffin's time to file a notice of appeal through December 17, 2012.*fn4 This Court lacks authority to further extend the time within which to appeal.*fn5
Griffin has mistakenly construed the Memorandum Decision entered by this Court as the Report and Recommendation of a Magistrate Judge.*fn6 Accordingly, Griffin's "Objection to Magistrates Report and Recommendations,"*fn7 is inapposite. Because this court must liberally construe a prisoner's pro se pleadings,*fn8 this Court will treat Griffin's document filed at Docket No. 21 as a timely motion for Relief from a Judgment of Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule provides:
(b) GROUNDS FOR RELIEF FROM A FINAL JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR PROCEEDING. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Nothing in Griffin's motion justifies the granting of relief on the basis of either: mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect (Rule 60(b)(1)); newly discovered evidence (Rule 60(b)(2)); fraud or misrepresentation (Rule 60(b)(3)); that the judgment is void (Rule 60(b)(4)); or that the judgment has been satisfied, reversed, or vacated (Rule 60(b)(5)). Only extraordinary circumstances justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6).*fn9 Rule 60(b) is neither a substitute for appeal,*fn10 nor a vehicle to rehash arguments that have been made and rejected, which is considered a successive application for relief under § 2254.*fn11 Accordingly, Griffin is not entitled to relief from the judgment entered herein under Rule 60.
There is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings.*fn12 Appointment of counsel is not required in a habeas corpus proceeding in the absence of an order granting discovery or an evidentiary hearing.*fn13 This Court may appoint counsel under the Criminal Justice Act in this case if the court determines that the interests of justice so require.*fn14 Because this case has been fully briefed and adjudicated on the merits, ...