Robinson v. Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Otisville,
| Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Otisville, |
| Edward Robinson |
| 3:2016cv00167 |
| May 2, 2016 |
| 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
9
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS 4 TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 ; OVERRULING OBJECTIONS 8 TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 ; ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 IN THEIR ENTIRETY; DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF (DOC. 2) WITH PREJUDICE; AND TERMINATING THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Thomas Rose on 9-27-2016. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
6
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - The Magistrate Judge again respectfully recommends the Petition herein be dismissed with prejudice. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Petitioner should be denied a certificat e 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 6/13/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 5/26/2016. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
3
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Because Mr. Robinson received a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim before the Ohio courts, Stone v. Powell, supra, bars this Court from reviewing that claim on the merits. It is therefore res pectfully 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 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 5/20/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 5/3/2016. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
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: Robinson v. Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Otisville, | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Edward Robinson | |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant: Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Otisville, | |
| 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.
