Taylor v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institution
Petitioner: Darryl Taylor
Respondent: Warden, Noble Correctional Institution
Case Number: 1:2017cv00267
Filed: April 21, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Cincinnati Office
County: NOBLE
Presiding Judge: Michael R. Barrett
Presiding Judge: Stephanie K. Bowman
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
July 24, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 22 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Having reconsidered the case in light of the Objections, the Magistrate Judge again concludes it should be dismissed with prejudice. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Petit ioner should be denied a certificate of appealability and the Court should certify to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be objectively frivolous and therefore should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 8/7/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 7/24/2018. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
July 19, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 21 ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 16 Report and Recommendation granting 15 Motion for Reconsideration and vacating 12 Clerk's Judgment. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 7/19/18. (ba)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
June 26, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER; SUBSTITUTED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS- This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioners Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)(ECF No. 17 ). Accompanying the Motion is proofsatisfactory to the Magistrate Judge that the Report and Recommendations filed May 17, 2018 (ECF No. 10 ) were not mailed to the Petitioner until May 21, 2018. Based on that mailing date, Petitioners Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 13 ) was timely deposited in the prison mail system because the deposit occurred on June 5, 2018. Accordingly, the Order Denying Motion forExtension of Time (ECF No. 14 ) is VACATED and the Report and Recommendations on Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 16 ) is WITHDRAWN. In place of t he withdrawn Report, the Magistrate Judge respectfully recommends that thejudgment herein (ECF No. 12 ) be reopened. In the expectation that that will happen, Petitioner is granted thirty days from todays date or until July 26, 2018, to file substan tive objections to the Report and Recommendations of May 17, 2018 (ECF No. 10 ). Objections to R&R due by 7/10/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 6/26/18. (kma)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
June 19, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - Because the Court did not cut short Petitioner's time to object, his Motion for Reconsideration is not well taken and should be denied. As the Magistrate Judge had previously advised Petitioner, if he has substantive objections to the decision dismissing his Petition, he can file a motion to amend the judgment not later than July 5, 2018, but that is a date the Court cannot extend. Objections to R&R due by 7/3/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 6/19/2018. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
June 7, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 10 Report and Recommendation that the Petition is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 6/7/18. (ba)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
May 17, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - It is respectfully recommended that the Petition herein bedismissed with prejudice. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion,Petitioner should be denied a certificate of appealability and the Cou rt should certify to the SixthCircuit that any appeal would be objectively frivolous and therefore should not be permitted toproceed in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 5/31/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 5/17/2018. (kpf)(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: Taylor v. Warden, Noble 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: Darryl Taylor
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, Noble Correctional Institution
Represented By: Hilda Rosenberg
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?