Brown v. Warden, Warren Correctional Institution
| Warden, Warren Correctional Institution |
| Jeffrey Antonio Brown |
| 3:2017cv00080 |
| March 8, 2017 |
| 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
103
ORDER denying 102 Motion for Reconsideration - Petitioners "Writ" is without merit. The Court again concludes his purported Power ofAttorney has no relevance to these proceedings. The "Writ" is DENIED. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 11-13-2018. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
101
ORDER overruling 100 Objection to Magistrate Judge Order -Petitioners Objections are without merit. His purported Power of Attorney has no relevance to these proceedings. The Objections are OVERRULED. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 10-31-2018. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
97
ORDER denying 96 Corrected Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 9-27-2018. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
95
ORDER denying 94 Motion for Default Judgment. Because the appeal is still pending, the Motion is DENIED. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 9-19-2018. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
93
DECISION AND ORDER denying 92 "Writ" for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 8-17-2018. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
87
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT 86 . Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 7-19-2018. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
80
DECISION AND ORDER denying 79 Motion for Reconsideration- This habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 is before the Court on Petitioner's Motionfor Reconsideration 79 . The Court finds the Motion is without merit and it is hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 6-29-2018. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
78
DECISION AND ORDER denying 77 Motion for Reconsideration - This habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration 77 . The Court finds the Motion is without merit and it is hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 6-26-2018. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
76
DECISION AND ORDER - This case is before the Court on Petitioner's Objections 57 to the Magistrate Judge's Supplemental Memorandum on Motion for Evidentiary Hearing 48 . These Objections are dealt with in the Court's Corrected Deci sion and Order and are hereby expressly overruled. This ruling renders moot Petitioner's Objections 58 to the Magistrate Judge's denial of extension of time to file objections to the Supplemental Memorandum Opinion on Evidentiary Hearing . On May 15, 2018, Petitioner filed his Writ of District Judge to Review the Entire Record 60 . Despite his later objection to the Courts construing his writs as motions, in this Writ he moves for District Judge review of the entire record. As the Magistrate Judge has recommended 62 , Petitioner's Objections 67 are without merit and are overruled. Petitioner's Objections 63 to the Magistrate Judge's Order to Amend the Caption 56 are moot because the Magistrate Judge amend ed the caption back to the caption Petitioner used when he filed the case (with the exception of correcting an error in the spelling of Respondent's name). Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 6-18-2018. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
72
DECISION AND ORDER overruling Objections 70 to the Magistrate Judge's Decision and Order/Report and Recommendations 65 . Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 6-6-2018. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
71
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 69 MOTION for New Trial filed by Jeffrey Antonio Brown El - Petitioner is entitled to due process of law because he is a person within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States of America. His status as a Moorish American, whatever that means, does not entitled him to any more or less due process than any other person within that territorial jurisdiction. This is not a consular court, but a court established by the Congress of the United States pu rsuant to Article III of the Constitution. Petitioner has no right to have this case heard in a consular court.Therefore Petitioners instant Motion should be denied in its entirety. Objections to R&R due by 6/15/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 6/1/18. (pb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
65
DECISION AND ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Petitioners various objections are without merit and should be overruled. Objections to R&R due by 6/5/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 5/22/18. (pb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
64
RECOMMITTAL ORDER - re 63 Objection to Magistrate Judge Order filed by Jeffrey Antonio Brown El. This habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 is before the Court on Petitioner's Objections 63 to the Magistrate Judge's Order to Amend the Caption 56 . The District Judge has preliminarily considered the Objections and believes they will be more appropriately resolved after further analysis by the Magistrate Judge. This matter is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge wit h instructions to file a supplemental report analyzing the Objections and making recommendations based on that analysis. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 5-21-2018. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
62
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON "WRIT" FOR REVIEW - Brown Els "Writ for District Judge to Review the Entire Record," construed as a motion, should be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 5/30/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 5/16/2018. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
53
DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S SUBSTITUTED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 41 . The Petition herein is DISMISSED with PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 5-4-2018. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
43
DECISION AND ORDER ON RENEWED MOTION TO EXPAND THE RECORD 42 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 4/11/2018. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
41
SUBSTITUTED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS- The Magistrate Judge again recommends that Petitioner be denied a certificate of appealability and the Court should certify to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be objectively frivolous and therefore shou ld not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 4/19/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 4/5/2018. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
39
RECOMMITTAL ORDER - re 38 Objection to Report and Recommendations filed by Jeffrey Antonio Brown - The District Judge has preliminarily considered the Objections and believes they will be more appropriately resolved after further analysis by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), this matter is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge withinstructions to file a supplemental report analyzing the Objections and making recommendations based on that analysis. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 3-27-2018. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
34
SECOND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER TO CLERK TO FURNISH PETITION - Having reconsidered the matter as directed, the Magistrate Judge again respectfully recommends that the Petition be dismissed with prejudice, that the Court deny a certificate of appealability, and that the Court certify to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be objectively frivolous and should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 3/13/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 2/27/2018. (kpf)(This document and a copy of his petition has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
33
RECOMMITTAL ORDER - re 31 Supplement Report and Recommendations and 32 Objection filed by Jeffrey Antonio Brown - The District Judge has preliminarily considered the Objections and believes they will be more appropriately resolved after furth er analysis by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), this matter is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge with instructions to file a second supplemental report analyzing the Objections and making recommendations based on that analysis. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 2-23-2018. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
31
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Having reconsidered the case in light of the Objections, the Magistrate Judge again respectfully recommends that the Petition be dismissed with prejudice, that Brown be denied a certificate of appealabilit y, and that this Court certify to the Sixth Circuit that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Objections to R&R due by 2/22/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 2/8/2018. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
30
RECOMMITTAL ORDER - re 29 Objection to Report and Recommendations filed by Jeffrey Antonio Brown. The District Judge has preliminarily considered the Objections and believes they will be more appropriately resolved after further analysis by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), this matter is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge with instructions to file a supplemental report analyzing the Objections and making recommendations based on that analysis. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 1-31-2018. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
26
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 4 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Jeffrey Antonio Brown. Based on the foregoing analysis, it is respectfully recommended that the Petition herein 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 1/3/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 12/20/17. (pb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
24
DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO EXPAND THE RECORD 23 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 12/1/2017. (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: Brown v. Warden, Warren 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: Jeffrey Antonio Brown | |
| 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, Warren 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.
