LaMar v. Warden Ohio State Penitentiary

Filing 246

RECOMMITAL ORDER - This capital habeas case is before the Court on the Warden's Appeal 237 of the Magistrate Judge's Decision and Order Granting Petitioner's Motion for Authorization to Appear in State Court 236 . A number of filin gs have occurred since the Appeal was filed [238-45]. The District Judge has preliminarily considered the Appeal and believes the issues it raises will be more appropriately resolved after further analysis by the Magistrate Judge. This matter is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge with instructions to file a supplemental memorandum analyzing the Appeal and making recommendations based on that analysis. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 2-9-2018. (de)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI KEITH LAMAR, Petitioner, : - vs - Case No. 1:04-cv-541 District Judge Thomas M. Rose Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz ED SHELDON, Warden, Ohio State Penitentiary, : Respondent. RECOMMITTAL ORDER This capital habeas case is before the Court on the Warden’s Appeal (ECF No. 237) of the Magistrate Judge’s Decision and Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Authorization to Appear in State Court (ECF No. 236). A number of filings have occurred since the Appeal was filed (ECF Nos. 238-45). The District Judge has preliminarily considered the Appeal and believes the issues it raises will be more appropriately resolved after further analysis by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), this matter is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge with instructions to file a supplemental memorandum analyzing the Appeal and making recommendations based on that analysis. February 9, 2018 *s/Thomas M. Rose _____________________________ Thomas M. Rose United States District Judge 1

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?