Turner v. Warden

Filing 264

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 260 MOTION for Leave to File Fourth Amended Petition Without Lethal Injection Grounds filed by Michael R Turner. Objections to R&R due by 3/14/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 2/25/2016. (kpf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS
MICHAEL R. TURNER,
:
Petitioner,

Case No. 2:07-cv-595
:

District Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-vsSTUART HUDSON, Warden,
:
Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This capital habeas case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File a
Fourth Amended Petition without Lethal Injection Grounds (ECF No. 260). Having read the
Motion, the Warden’s Response (ECF No. 261), and Turner’s Reply (ECF No. 262), the
Magistrate Judge humbly confesses error and respectfully recommends that the District Judge
correct that error by entering, nunc pro tunc for October 29, 2015, an order identical to ECF No.
254 except that the substituted last paragraph will read
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the lethal injection
grounds for relief in Petitioner’s Third Amended Petition (ECF No.
244) be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of Petitioner’s
proposed Fourth Amended Petition in the event the Court sustains
Turner’s Appeal (ECF No. 263) from the Magistrate Judge’s Order
denying leave to file the Fourth Amended Petition.

The Magistrate Judge understands that this solution to the present difficulty is acceptable
1

to both parties in the case. Nevertheless, since what is recommended is an amendment to a
District Judge’s Order, the Magistrate Judge files this as a Report and Recommendation.
Turner’s Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Petition without Lethal Injection
Grounds is DENIED.

February 25, 2016.
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. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to seventeen
days because this Report is being served by one of the methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F). 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. If the Report
and Recommendations are based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. 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. See United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985).

2