Woods v. Warden, Marion Correctional Institution

Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Ohio Southern District Woods v. Warden, Marion Correctional Institution

Woods v. Warden, Marion Correctional Institution

Petitioner:	Jeffery Woods
Respondent:	Warden, Marion Correctional Institution
Case Number:	1:2016cv00922
Filed:	September 14, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office:	Cincinnati Office
County:	MARION
Presiding Judge:	William O. Bertelsman
Presiding Judge:	Karen L. Litkovitz
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
August 31, 2017	Filing 16 ORDER ADOPTING 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 08/31/2017. the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 13) be, and it hereby is, adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court; and that because this Court lacks jurisdiction in this matter involving a successive habeas petition, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), respondents motion to transfer the petition (Doc. 7) be, and hereby is, GRANTED and that the petition(Doc.1) is TRANSFERRED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1631 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for review and determination as to whether the District Court may consider the successive claims for relief. (bjc)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
July 3, 2017	Filing 13 ORDER that petioner's 9 Motion to take judicial notice, which is construed as a motion to amend, is Granted to the extent petitioner seeks to clarify his claims. In light of the Court's recommendation that the petition be transferred to the Sixth Circuit, petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel 5 is Denied as moot. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that respondent's 7 MOTION to transfer pursuant to 28 USC 1631 to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for revi ew and determination whether the district court may consider the successive claims for relief. ( Objections to R&R due by 7/17/2017). Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 7/3/2017. (art)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 31, 2017

Filing 16 ORDER ADOPTING 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 08/31/2017. the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 13) be, and it hereby is, adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court; and that because this Court lacks jurisdiction in this matter involving a successive habeas petition, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), respondents motion to transfer the petition (Doc. 7) be, and hereby is, GRANTED and that the petition(Doc.1) is TRANSFERRED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1631 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for review and determination as to whether the District Court may consider the successive claims for relief. (bjc)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

July 3, 2017

Filing 13 ORDER that petioner's 9 Motion to take judicial notice, which is construed as a motion to amend, is Granted to the extent petitioner seeks to clarify his claims. In light of the Court's recommendation that the petition be transferred to the Sixth Circuit, petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel 5 is Denied as moot. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that respondent's 7 MOTION to transfer pursuant to 28 USC 1631 to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for revi ew and determination whether the district court may consider the successive claims for relief. ( Objections to R&R due by 7/17/2017). Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 7/3/2017. (art)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Woods v. Warden, Marion Correctional Institution
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Jeffery Woods
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: Warden, Marion Correctional Institution
Represented By:	Jerri Lynne Fosnaught
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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?