Carter v. Mitchell

Filing 185

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING CEDRIC CARTER'S OBJECTIONS (Doc. # 176 ) TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL R. MERZ'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTION TO STAY (Doc. # 174 ); OVERRULING CARTER'S OBJECTIONS (Doc. # 183 ) TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE MERZ 'S SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTION TO STAY (Doc. # 182 ); ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE MERZ'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTION TO STAY IN THEIR ENTIRETY; DENYING CARTER'S MOTION TO STAY AND INCLUDING CARTERS MOTION TO STAY IN THE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 06/27/13. (pb1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

CEDRIC CARTER,
Petitioner,
-vs-

Case No. 1:98-cv-853

BETTY MITCHELL, Warden,

District Judge Thomas M. Rose

Respondent.
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING CEDRIC CARTER’S
OBJECTIONS (Doc. #176) TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL R.
MERZ’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTION TO STAY
(Doc. #174); OVERRULING CARTER’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. #183) TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE MERZ’S SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTION TO STAY (Doc. #182); ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE MERZ’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON
MOTION TO STAY IN THEIR ENTIRETY; DENYING CARTER’S
MOTION TO STAY AND INCLUDING CARTER’S MOTION TO STAY
IN THE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Petitioner Cedric Carter’s (“Carter’s”)
Objections (doc. #176) to the Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Michael R.
Merz on Carter’s Motion To Stay (doc. #174) and Carter’s Objections (doc. #183) to the
Supplemental Report and Recommendations (doc. #182) of Magistrate Judge Merz on Carter’s
Motion To Stay. These Report and Recommendations and Supplemental Report and
Recommendations address Carter’s Motion To Stay his federal habeas proceedings (doc. #165).
The Report and Recommendations on Carter’s Motion To Stay was filed on May 1, 2013,
and the Supplemental Report and Recommendations on Carter’s Motion To Stay was filed on

June 19, 2013. Carter objected to the Report and Recommendations on May 17, 2013, (doc.
#176) and objected to the Supplemental Report and Recommendations on June 24, 2013 (doc.
#183). The Warden responded to both Carter’s Objections to the Report and Recommendations
(doc. #179) and Carter’s Objections to the Supplemental Report and Recommendations (doc.
#184). Carter’s Objections are, therefore, ripe for decision.
As required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 72(b), the
District Judge has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court
finds that Carter’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations on
Carter’s Motion To Stay and Carter’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Supplemental Report
and Recommendations on Carter’s Motion To Stay are not well-taken, and they are hereby
OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations and Supplemental Report
and Recommendations on Carter’s Motion To Stay are adopted in their entirety.
Therefore, Carter’s Motion To Stay (doc. #165) is denied. Further, questions raised by
Carter’s Motion To Stay should be included in the certificate of appealability.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Twenty-Seventh Day of June, 2013.
s/Thomas M. Rose

_____________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of record

-2-