Hendrix v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Insititution

Filing 98

AMENDED DECISION AND ENTRY ON RESPONSE TO ORDER FOR CLARIFICATION - Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Re-Cast Motion for Reconsideration as Objections to Magistrate Judge's April 28, 2023 Decision (ECF No. 95) is DENIED and Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's April 28, 2023 Decision and Order Denying Motions for Leave to Amend, to Expand the Records, and to Conduct Discovery (ECF No. 96) is STRICKEN. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 5/23/2023. (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-00623-DRC-MRM Doc #: 98 Filed: 05/23/23 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 2498

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.

AMENDED 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

Case: 1:17-cv-00623-DRC-MRM Doc #: 98 Filed: 05/23/23 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 2499

Petitioner also requests to be allowed to “add the proper Objections headings” and then has
filed, without Court permission, a document labeled “Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate
Judge's April 28, 2023 Decision and Order Denying Motions for Leave to Amend, to Expand the
Records, and to Conduct Discovery.” (ECF No. 96). The request to add “proper Objections
heading” is DENIED and the new set of Objections is STRICKEN. There is no need for “proper
Objections headings,” whatever they might be. And the Motion for Reconsideration was filed
within the time allowed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) for filing objections, but the new set of Objections
was not.
The Magistrate Judge has not minutely compared the two documents, so it may be that
there are no substantive differences. However, given the length of the record in this case already,
that is not an issue the Court wishes to adjudicate. Moreover, accepting the new set of Objections
would extend the State’s opportunity to respond from May 26, 2023, to June 2, 2023.

May 23, 2023.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

2