Hendrix v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Insititution

Filing 97

DECISION AND ENTRY ON RESPONSE TO ORDER FOR CLARIFICATION - Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk amend the docket for ECF No. 91 to read Petitioners Objections to April 28, 2023, 87 Order on Motion for Leave to Amend, to Expand the Re cord and to Conduct Discovery by Petitioner D'Jango Hendrix. Petitioner also requests to be allowed to add the proper Objections headings. The request is denied. Adding headings is unnecessary. The Motion for Reconsideration was filed within th e time allowed for objections and granting the requests runs the risk of confusion of the issues already presented. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 5/19/23. (pb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
D’JANGO HENDRIX,
Petitioner,

:

- vs -

Case No. 1:17-cv-623
District Judge Douglas R. Cole
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

WARDEN, Lebanon Correctional
Institution,
:
Respondent.

DECISION AND ENTRY ON RESPONSE TO ORDER FOR
CLARIFICATION

This habeas corpus action is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration
(ECF No. 91) of the Magistrate Judge’s Decision and Order Denying Motions For Leave To
Amend, To Expand The Record, And To Conduct Discovery (“Decision and Order,” ECF No. 87).
In response, the Magistrate Judge ordered Petitioner to clarify whether he wished to have the
Magistrate Judge reconsider his decision or whether, instead, he wished to have his Motion for
Reconsideration considered as a set of objections (Order for Clarification, ECF No. 93). Petitioner
has now responded, choosing the “objections” alternative.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk amend the docket for ECF No. 91 to
read “Petitioner’s Objections to April 28, 2023, 87 Order on Motion for Leave to Amend, to
Expand the Record and to Conduct Discovery by Petitioner D'Jango Hendrix.”
1

Petitioner also requests to be allowed to “add the proper Objections headings.” The request
is denied. Adding headings is unnecessary. The Motion for Reconsideration was filed within the
time allowed for objections and granting the requests runs the risk of confusion of the issues
already presented.

May 19, 2023.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

2