Henley v. Warden Richland Correctional Institution
| Brian Damont Henley |
| Warden Richland Correctional Institution |
| 3:2017cv00421 |
| December 15, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Dayton Office |
| RICHLAND |
| 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
39
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS 24 , 29 , 34 , 38 ; ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 21 , SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 26 , SUBSTITUTED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 31 AND SUPPLEMENT TO SUBSTITUTED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 37 ; DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 1 AND TERMINATING CASE. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 11-7-2018. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
37
SUPPLEMENT TO SUBSTITUTED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - The Magistrate Judge again respectfully recommends 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 10/16/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 10/1/2018. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
31
SUBSTITUTED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - The Magistrate Judge respectfully recommends that 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 9/27/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 9/13/2018. (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 Brian Damont Henley - The District Judge has preliminarily considered the Objections and believes they will be more appropriately resolved after further analysis by the M agistrate Judge. 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 9-7-2018. (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
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - The Magistrate Judge respectfully again recommends the Petition be dismissed with prejudice. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Petitioner should be denied a certificate of appealability. Henley claims reasonable jurists would disagree about the applicability of Blakely, but cites no such reasonable jurists (Objections, ECF No. 24, PageID 1805). 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 8/28/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 8/14/2018. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
21
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - The Magistrate Judge respectfully recommends that the Petition herein be dismissed with prejudice. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Petitioner should be denied a certificate of appeala bility 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 7/23/2018. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
9
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY 8 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 1/23/2018. (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: Henley v. Warden Richland 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: Brian Damont Henley | |
| 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 Richland 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.
