Matthews v. Warden, Madison Correctional Institution, No. 3:2016cv00381 - Document 17 (S.D. Ohio 2016)

Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MERZ (DOC. 12 ), AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 9 ), SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 6 ), AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 3 ), AND OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 16), PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 13 ), PETITIONER'S OB JECTIONS TO SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 10 ), AND PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 7 ), THE MAGISTRATE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, (DOC. 16 ), DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,(DOC. 1 ), AND TERMINATING THE INSTANT CASE. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 11/29/16. (ep)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
Matthews v. Warden, Madison Correctional Institution Doc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON Anson J. Matthews, Plaintiff, Case No. 3:16-cv-381 Judge Thomas M. Rose v. Rhonda Richard, Warden, Madison Correctional Institution, Defendant. DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MERZ (DOC. 12), AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 9), SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 6), AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 3), AND OVERRULING PETITIONER=S OBJECTIONS TO SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 16), PETITIONER=S OBJECTIONS TO AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 13), PETITIONER=S OBJECTIONS TO SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 10), AND PETITIONER=S OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 7), THE MAGISTRATE=S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, (DOC. 16), DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, (DOC. 1), AND TERMINATING THE INSTANT CASE. Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Objections to Second Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Doc. 16), Petitioner’s Objections to Amended Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Doc. 13), Petitioner’s Objections to Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Doc. 10), and Objection to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations. (Doc. 7). Dockets.Justia.com Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. 3), Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Doc. 6), Amended Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Doc. 9), and Second Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Doc. 12), all recommend denying Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Doc. 1), and denying permission to proceed in forma pauperis. The Magistrate concludes that Petitioner has procedurally defaulted his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel by not presenting it in an application to reopen Petitioner’s direct appeal pursuant to Ohio Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(B). Petitioner claims to have preserved this claim by asserting it in his appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, which declined to accept jurisdiction. As required by 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court finds that Petitioner=s objections, (Docs. 7, 10, 13 and 16), to the Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendations, (Docs. 3, 6, 9, and 12), are not well taken and they are hereby OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendations, (Docs. 3, 6, 9, and 12), are ADOPTED. Wherefore, the Court DISMISSES the Petition (Doc. 1) WITH PREJUDICE. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability and the Court certifies to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be objectively frivolous and therefore Petitioner should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk is ORDERED to terminate the instant case. DONE and ORDERED this Tuesday, November 29, 2016. s/Thomas M. Rose ________________________________ THOMAS M. ROSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.