Stein v. Warden Ross Correctionl Institution
Petitioner: Samuel Stein
Respondent: Warden Ross Correctionl Institution
Case Number: 3:2014cv00274
Filed: August 18, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Dayton Office
County: MONTGOMERY
Presiding Judge: Michael R Merz
Presiding Judge: Thomas M Rose
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
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
June 2, 2015 Opinion or Order 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.)
March 31, 2015 Opinion or Order 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.)
March 3, 2015 Opinion or Order 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.)
January 8, 2015 Opinion or Order 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.)
December 10, 2014 Opinion or Order 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.)
September 9, 2014 Opinion or Order 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)
August 19, 2014 Opinion or Order 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)
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: 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.


Why Is My Information Online?