Reel v. Cain et al

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING 23 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, with corrections, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 10/31/2017.(jls)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RONALD REEL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-5156

N. BURL CAIN

SECTION: “F”(3)

ORDER
The Court, having considered the petition, the record, the applicable law, the Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and the objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation, hereby approves the Report and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge and adopts it as its own opinion, with the corrections noted below.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the federal application for habeas corpus relief filed by Ronald
Reel is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following errors in the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation be and are hereby CORRECTED as follows:
On page 10, the correct citation for Jackson v. Virginia is 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
On page 17, an open quotation mark in the second to last sentence must be added to the
word “Evidence.” The citation at the end of the quotation should be amended to state “Id. (quoting
Nobles v. Johnson, 127 F.3d 409, 415 (5th Cir. 1997) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted)).”

1

On page 23, in the first sentence under the sub-heading “Self-Representation,” an
extraneous “to” between “motion” and “seeking” should be deleted.
On page 25, the quotation of the first line should read “proceed without counsel when he
voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so.” From the last sentence in the second full paragraph
(quoting Faretta), the word “his” should be deleted such that the end of the quotation should state
“...made with eyes open.”
On page 26, the quotation from Indiana v. Edwards in the first line should be edited to
insert the word “seeking” in between “defendant” and “to”, and the words “waive the right” should
be italicized to reflect the Court’s intention to keep the Supreme Court’s emphasis.
On page 35, the citation to Williams v. Illinois should be updated to reflect the United
States Reports: “Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50, 57 (2012).” The two following pin cites should
read “Id. at 58” and “Id. at 82.”
On page 36, in the string citation in the middle of the second paragraph, portion noting
“adopted, 2016…, appeal docketed, … (5th Cir. Aug. 22, 2016), “ should be moved to follow the
first case citation to Payne v. Cain.
On page 37, the citation to Dorsey v. Cook should be updated to reflect the Federal
Appendix: “677 F. App’x 265, 267 (6th Cir. 2017).” A closing quotation mark is missing from
the immediately following explanatory parenthetical, and should be inserted after the word
“testimonial.”
On page 49, the second paragraph’s first citation to Schlup should have the pincite of “33132.” In the same string cite, Herrera’s explanatory parenthetical should have a closed quotation
mark after “him.”

2

On page 51, the reporter in the last citation of the first paragraph to Woodfox and Day is
incorrect; instead of F.2d, the reporter for both cases is F.3d.
On page 52, the first quotation to Ford v. Cockrell should be changed from “challenge the
witness’ testimony” to “challenge that witness’ [sic] testimony.”
On page 53, a final punctuation is missing from the last sentence; a period should be
inserted after the word “proceedings.”
On page 54, the first citation of the second paragraph is incorrect. Instead of “Id. at 753,”
the citation should read, “Otero, 2013 WL 6072716, at *16.” The quoting citation and subsequent
history is correct.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of October, 2017.
31st

____________________________________
MARTIN L.C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3