Wells v. LaRose
Order Adopting 24 Report and Recommendation. Judge Jack Zouhary on 3/7/2017. (D,L)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Case No. 1:15 CV 298
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
-vsJUDGE JACK ZOUHARY
Christopher LaRose, Warden,
This Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) ( Doc.
24) dismissing Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petitioner filed Objections (Doc. 27).
Petitioner had two underlying state cases. With respect to Case No. CR-09-525073, Petitioner
appears to object that: (1) his Petition is not barred by the applicable statute of limitations (Doc. 27
at 4); (2) his arguments are not procedurally barred (id. at 7); and (3) he need not be in custody
pursuant to a state conviction when his Petition is filed (id. 27 at 9). With respect to Case No. CR-10536779, Petitioner appears to object that: (1) he was denied his constitutional rights to due process
and a fair, open, and speedy trial (id. at 16–26); and (2) he had ineffective assistance of counsel (id.
at 21–22). The bulk of his arguments appear to rely on the notion that the trial court lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction over him and, thus, his sentences are void (see id. at 5–11, 17, 20, 22).
These objections raise no new arguments that were not previously, and correctly, addressed
by the Magistrate Judge (see Doc. 24 at 15–17). Moreover, they fail to adequately address the reasons
for dismissal identified in the R&R. The R&R accurately states the facts and law, and this Court
adopts the R&R in full. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Jack Zouhary
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
March 7, 2017
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?