Vinson v. Jenkins

Filing 20

Order and Decision Adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (re 18 ). Petitioner's decision is dismissed. Judge John R. Adams on 8/2/17. (K,C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
THOMAS ANTHONY VINSON,
Petitioner,
v.
CHARLOTTE JENKENS, WARDEN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-2122
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS

ORDER AND DECISION

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Thomas Vinson’s objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) recommending dismissal of Vinson’s habeas
corpus action. Doc. 18, 19. For the following reasons, Vinson’s objections are OVERRULED,
the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the Court
DISMISSES the underlying habeas petition. Doc. 4.
The R & R adequately states the factual and procedural background of this case. Vinson
has demonstrated no error in that background, so the Court will not reiterate those sections herein.
I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
If a party files written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, a

judge must perform a de novo review of “those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

II.

LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on June 26, 2017, in which he

recommended that Vinson’s petition be dismissed as untimely. Vinson filed a pro se objection to
the R&R and claims that his medication prevented him from filing on time and seeks equitable
tolling. Further, Vinson acknowledges that “…he believes the [r]eport is well reasoned.” Doc. 19.
Vinson admits his objections are, “…more in the mode of begging to differ with the conclusion…”
Doc. 19. Vinson provides multiple citations to cases and statutes without argument or a specific
application to his case.
Even though the Court construes a pro se filing liberally, the Court is not required to
manufacture objections when they are not stated with specificity. Vinson generally objects to the
R&R’s conclusion on the grounds of mental competency but does not rebut the R&R’s finding of
untimeliness, even after the change of his medications. As explained in the R&R, even if the court
were to accept Vinson’s best case argument that his medicine prevented him from filing until his
medication was corrected, Vinson “…still did not file his federal habeas petition within the oneyear limitations period once the tolling of the AEDPA limitations period ended. 1” Doc. 18.
Therefore, Vinson’s petition is untimely.

1

By Vinson’s own account, he was properly medicated and, therefore, no longer
impeded from pursuing legal action by December 2011. On that date he filed his
motion to withdraw his guilty pleas in the trial court. Equitable tolling, therefore,
would have ceased at that time. Statutory tolling, however, would have kicked in
and stopped Vinson’s AEDPA limitations clock from beginning to run while the
state post-conviction proceeding was pending. That matter was pending until
Vinson’s thirty days in which to appeal the trial court’s January 24, 2012, denial of
the motion expired on February 23, 2012, with no appeal filed. The AEDPA statute
of limitations on Vinson’s habeas petition then would have started to run the
following day, February 24, 2012, and expired one year later, on Monday,
February 25, 2013.
Doc. 18 at 13-14 [internal citations omitted].

III.

Request for Counsel
Although Vinson does not specifically request the assistance of counsel, he does make a

reference to needing assistance in order to access his medical files. Because Vinson’s motion is
untimely, the appointment of counsel would be unable to resuscitate Vinson’s legal arguments.
IV.

Conclusion
Vinson has failed to articulate specific objections to the Magistrate’s R&R. Therefore, the

Court adopts the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Petitioner’s petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 2, 2017

/s/ John R. Adams_________________
Judge John R. Adams
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT