Stein v. Warden Ross Correctionl Institution
| Samuel Stein |
| Warden Ross Correctionl Institution |
| 3:2014cv00274 |
| August 18, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Dayton Office |
| MONTGOMERY |
| Michael R Merz |
| Thomas M Rose |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
32
ORDER OVERRULING STEIN'S OBJECTIONS (DOC. 20 ) TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 11 ); OVERRULING STEIN'S OBJECTIONS (DOC. 28 ) TO THE SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 25 ); OVERRULING STEIN'SOBJECTIONS (D OC. 31 ) TO THE THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 30 ); ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 11 ), SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 19 ), SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIO NS (DOC. 25 ), AND THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 30 ) IN THEIR ENTIRETY; DISMISSING STEIN'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DOC. 10 ) WITH PREJUDICE; DENYING ANY REQUESTED CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; CERTIFYING THAT ANY APPEAL WOULD BE OBJECTIVELY FRIVOLOUS AND TERMINATING THIS. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 6/2/15. (ep)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
30
THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - It is again respectfully recommended that the Petition be dismissed with prejudice. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Petitioner should be denied a certificate of appea lability 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 4/17/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 3/31/2015. (kpf1)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
25
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - It is respectfully recommended that Stein's Objections be stricken and the Petition be dismissed with prejudice on the basis of the original Report. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree w ith this conclusion, Petitioner 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 3/20/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 3/2/2015. (kpf1)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
19
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - It is again respectfully recommended that the Petition be dismissed with prejudice. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Petitioner should be denied a certificate of appealabili ty 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 1/26/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 1/8/2015. (kpf1)(This document has been sent by the Clerks Office by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
11
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - It is respectfully recommended that the Petition be dismissed with prejudice. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Petitioner should be denied a certificate of appealability and the Court sh ould 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 12/29/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 12/9/2014. (kpf1)(This document has been sent by the Clerks Office by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
5
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, PETITIONER'S MOTION TO EXPAND THE RECORD, FOR LEAVE TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, AND/OR FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 9/9/2014. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
2
ORDER FOR ANSWER - It is hereby ORDERED that Respondent shall, not later than October 1, 2014, file an answer conforming to the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases. Petitioner may, not later than twenty-one days after the answer is filed, file and serve a reply to the answer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 8/19/2014. (kpf1)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Stein v. Warden Ross Correctionl Institution | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Samuel Stein | |
| 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 Ross Correctionl Institution | |
| Represented By: | Mary Anne Reese |
| 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.
