Raglin v. Mitchell

Filing 339

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 320 327 Report and Recommendations denying 309 Motion to Alter Judgment; denying 310 Motion to Reopen Case; this matter remains closed and terminated. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 6/2/20. (ba)

Case: 1:00-cv-00767-MRB-MRM Doc #: 339 Filed: 06/03/20 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 10430

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Walter Raglin,
Petitioner,
Case No. 1:00-cv-767
v.
Judge Michael R. Barrett
Betty Mitchell, Warden,
Respondent.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s June 10, 2019 Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) on Petitioner’s Second Motion to Alter or Amend the
Judgment and Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. 320); and the Magistrate Judge’s
August 13, 2019 Supplemental Recommendations on Rule 59(e) and 60 Motions (Doc.
327). Petitioner filed Objections. (Docs. 325, 333). Respondent filed a Response to
those Objections. (Doc. 334).
This Court shall consider objections to a magistrate judge's order on a
nondispositive matter and “shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate
judge's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
When objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are received on a
dispositive matter, the assigned district judge “must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3).

After review, the district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the

recommended decision; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Case: 1:00-cv-00767-MRB-MRM Doc #: 339 Filed: 06/03/20 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 10431

Petitioner brings this capital habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On March 22, 2018, this Court issued an opinion, order and final judgment. (Docs. 295,
296). Petitioner seeks to reopen or amend the judgment in order to move to amend his
Petition to add lethal injection invalidity claims. This Court previously denied a similar
motion on the basis of In re Campbell, 874 F.3d 454 (6th Cir. 2017).

(Doc. 292).

Petitioner maintains that Campbell was subsequently abrogated by Bucklew v.
Precythe, 139 S.Ct. 1112 (2019). The Magistrate Judge concluded that that there was
nothing in Bucklew which abrogates Campbell, and Petitioner’s claims are not properly
heard in habeas corpus.
The Sixth Circuit has recently ruled that Campbell was not abrogated by
Bucklew. In re Smith, No. 17-4090, 2020 WL 2732228, at *3 (6th Cir. May 26, 2020)
(holding that the petitioner’s proposed as-applied method-of-execution claim are not
cognizable in habeas in light of Campbell). Accordingly, the Court finds no error in the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Petitioner’s Motions for Amend and for Relief from
Judgment should be denied.
Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge’s June 10, 2019 R&R on
Petitioner’s Second Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment and Motion for Relief from
Judgment (Doc. 320); and the Magistrate Judge’s August 13, 2019 Supplemental
Recommendations on Rule 59(e) and 60 Motions (Doc. 327) are ADOPTED.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner’s Second Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment (Doc. 309) is
DENIED;
2. Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. 310) is DENIED; and
1.

Case: 1:00-cv-00767-MRB-MRM Doc #: 339 Filed: 06/03/20 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 10432

3. This matter remains CLOSED and TERMINATED from the active docket of this
Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Michael R. Barrett
JUDGE MICHAEL R. BARRETT