Hobbs v. Faulkner et al

Filing 153

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Because this issue is at the heart of the pending appeal and is not an ancillary sanctions matter as Plaintiff asserts, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Motion while the appeal is pending. On that basis, th e Motion 149 should be denied. Objections to R&R due by 6/19/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 6/5/2020. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Case: 1:17-cv-00441-MRB-MRM Doc #: 153 Filed: 06/05/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 2141

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
RYAN D. HOBBS,
Plaintiff,

-

vs

:

Case No. 1:17-cv-441
District Judge Michael R. Barrett
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-

DEREK FAULKNER, et al.,
Defendants.

:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion To Enjoin Defendants from Further
Illegal Activity while on Appeal (ECF No. 149). Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to comply
with the Ohio Public Records Act, Ohio Revised Code § 149.43, and with their asserted duty under
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), to turn over to him now exculpatory evidence which he
alleges should have been turned over to his defense counsel twelve years ago.
On March 29, 2019, District Judge Barrett entered final judgment dismissing this case with
prejudice (ECF No. 75, 76). Plaintiff appealed from that judgment and the appeal remains pending
before the United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit in their Case No. 19-3303. The
relief Plaintiff seeks in this Motion is at the heart of the relief he sought in the Complaint in this
case. By dismissing his case with prejudice, this Court has determined he is not entitled to that
relief. Presumably a principal claim he has made on appeal is that this Court was in error in not
entertaining his claims.
1

Case: 1:17-cv-00441-MRB-MRM Doc #: 153 Filed: 06/05/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 2142

Because this issue is at the heart of the pending appeal and is not an ancillary sanctions
matter as Plaintiff asserts, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Motion while the appeal
is pending. On that basis, the Motion should be denied.

June 5, 2020.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this Report
and Recommendations. Because this document is being served by mail, three days are added under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be
accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. A party may respond to
another party’s objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to
make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal.

2