Chapman v. Ohio State of
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 7 Report and Recommendation denying 6 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 8/21/17. (ba)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
MAURICE CHAPMAN, SR.,
Case No. 1:16cv896
District Judge Michael R. Barrett
Magistrate Judge Karen Litkovitz
STATE OF OHIO,
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the February 17, 2017 Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) of the Magistrate Judge, which recommends transferring Petitioner’s writ of habeas
corpus to the Sixth Circuit for further proceedings and denying Petitioner’s “motion to amend
and grant writ of habeas corpus, and not transfer.” (Doc. 7). Petitioner filed a Motion for
Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8), which the
Magistrate Judge granted. (Doc. 9). On March 20, 2017, Petitioner filed his Objection. 1 (Doc.
Petitioner brings the instant pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his 2010
Hamilton County, Ohio convictions and sentence. In recommending his Petition be transferred
to the Sixth Circuit, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the instant Petition was a successive
petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) and thus, this Court lacked jurisdiction to consider it
without authorization from the Sixth Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). The Magistrate Judge
The extension made Petitioner’s objections due on Friday, March 17, 2017. Petitioner’s Objection was not entered
by the Clerk’s office until Monday, March 20, 2017. However, the Certificate of Service indicates that his
objections were sent by regular mail on March 13, 2017. Accordingly, Petitioner’s objections are deemed timely
pursuant to the prison mailbox rule. See e.g. Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 925 (6th Cir. 2008).
explained that prior to the instant Petition, Petitioner had already filed two habeas corpus
petitions – in September 2011 and May 2014, respectively. Because the Petition in this case
includes recitations of the same arguments raised in his prior petitions, the Magistrate Judge
concluded that Petitioner had not satisfied the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)
necessary for this Court to review his Petition. 2
While Petitioner’s Objection was pending, the Sixth Circuit ruled on the authorization
issue. (Doc. 11). In denying Petitioner’s motion for authorization to file a second or successive
§ 2254 petition, the Court found he had failed to make a prima facie showing that the proposed
petition relied on a new rule or constitutional law, and he failed to present new evidence of his
actual innocence. (Id. at PageID 106). Accordingly, all that is left for the undersigned to review
is any properly raised objections with respect to Petitioner’s request his Petition not be
transferred to the Sixth Circuit, as the Court does not have jurisdiction to review a successive
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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 disposition; receive further
evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). General objections are insufficient to preserve any issues for review: “[a] general
objection to the entirety of the Magistrate [Judge]’s report has the same effect as would a failure
to object.” Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).
A petition is deemed not successive where prior dispositions are not “on the merits.” See Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 485-86 (2000).
Nevertheless, the objections of a petitioner appearing pro se will be construed liberally. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
Petitioner’s objections are nearly indiscernible. First, he “seeks authorization to argue
that the district court violated his constitutional rights to due process and other constitutional
law,” and asks the Court to authorize the filing of a successive § 2255 motion. (Doc. 10, PageID
98). He concedes that he “may pursue a successive § 2255 motion in the district court only if
this Court first authorizes it.” (Id). As noted above, this is not for the undersigned to decide, and
indeed, the Sixth Circuit has already decided this issue in the negative. Thus, to the extent
Petitioner raises any objections regarding authorization to file a successive habeas corpus
petition, they are OVERRULED.
Petitioner then seems to argue this is not a successive habeas petition. (Doc. 10, PageID
99). He appears to rehash some of the grounds for relief raised in his prior habeas corpus
For example, he argues “[t]he Magistrate Judge failed to address the fact that
[Petitioner’s] due process rights were violated when he was denied assistance of counsel of both
trial and appellate counsel.” (Id). He also raises once again the issue racial bias in the jury. (Id.
at PageID 100). Despite his contention to the contrary, however, the Magistrate Judge did
address these claims, finding that they had already been raised in his prior petition. Thus, she
properly concluded that Petitioner had not raised new claims in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(2). Accordingly, Petitioner’s objections on this point are OVERRULED.
To the extent Petitioner raises any additional objections, the Court finds they are
insufficient to direct the Court’s attention to any particular issues contained in the R&R and thus,
they are without merit. See Howard, 932 F.2d at 509.
Consistent with the foregoing, Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 10) are OVERRULED and
the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 7) is ADOPTED in its entirety. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Petitioner’s “motion to amend and grant writ of habeas corpus, and not
transfer” (Doc. 6) is DENIED. Thus, pursuant to the Sixth Circuit’s Order denying Petitioner’s
motion for authorization to file a second or successive § 2254 petition (Doc. 11), this matter shall
be CLOSED and TERMINATED from the docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Michael R. Barrett
Michael R. Barrett, Judge
United States District Court
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?