Chatman v. Warden Ross Correctional Institution
Filing
17
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge George C Smith on 10-16-13. (ga)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
RICHARD A. CHATMAN,
Petitioner,
Case No. 2:10-cv-1091
District Judge George C. Smith
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
-vsWARDEN, ROSS CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION,
Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTION FOR NEW
TRIAL
This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion to Amend the
Judgment (Doc. No. 14). Essentially Petitioner wants the Court to vacate its Judgment of April
17, 2013, which adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations recommending
that the Petition be dismissed with prejudice (Doc. Nos. 11, 12).
Because the Motion was filed post-judgment, it was deemed referred to Magistrate Judge
Merz for report and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 646(b)(3). The Magistrate Judge filed a
Report and Recommendations recommending the Motion for New Trial be denied (Doc. No. 15)
and Petitioner has filed Objections to that Report (Doc. No. 16).
Review of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations on a post-judgment
motion is de novo.
The Report recommends not reopening the judgment because Petitioner did not file any
objections to Magistrate Judge Merz’s Report on the merits within the time allowed by law. 1
The Report also noted, importantly, that the case had been pending for two years without
Petitioner’s filing anything of substance on the merits.
In his instant Objections, Petitioner again recites the lack of law library resources at his
institution of confinement (Objections, Doc. No. 16, PageID 701-02). Even accepting those
limitations, Petitioner has not explained why it would take him the full seventeen-day objection
period to draft a two-sentence request for extension of time. Responding to Magistrate Judge
Merz’s point that he had filed nothing of substance in response to the Return of Writ, he notes
that the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases do not require him to do so and none of the legal
resources give a form for such a reply. Even now he does not tender any substantive argument,
but asks that the judgment be reopened so that he can do so at some unspecified future time. (Id.
at PageID 703).
Having reviewed again the substance of Magistrate Judge Merz’s Report and
Recommendations on the merits (Doc. No. 9), the Court concludes that they are a correct
analysis of the law. Petitioner has not shown that the decisions on any of these points by the
Ohio courts was contrary to or an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established
United States Supreme Court precedent.
Accordingly, upon de novo review, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Merz’s Report
and Recommendations on the Petitioner’s Motion for New Trial and that Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ George C. Smith__________________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
Although Petitioner sought and Magistrate Judge Merz granted an extension of time to file objections,
that extension was effectively negated by the Court’s entry of judgment. In light that the entry of
judgment, Magistrate Judge Merz vacated the extension of time.
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
