Ahmed v. Houk

Filing 84

ORDER WITHDRAWING SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION re 79 Order on Objection to Magistrate Judge Order. Because District Judge Watson has ruled that the Supplemental Opinion (Doc. No. 79 ) was filed without authority, it is hereby WITHDRAWN. This case remain s pending before District Judge Watson on Petitioners Objections (Doc. No. 78) to the Magistrate Judges Decision and Order Denying Petitioners Motions for Discovery and an Evidentiary Hearing(Doc. No. 77 ). In the absence of further order from Distr ict Judge Watson, this Order does not affect the extension of time granted by him to Petitioner to file objections to the Supplemental Opinion not later than December 30, 2012 (See Doc. No. 83 , PageID 2021). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 12/1/2012. (kf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS
NAWAZ AHMED,
:
Petitioner,

Case No. 2:07-cv-658
:

District Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-vsMARC C. HOUK, Warden,
:
Respondent.

ORDER WITHDRAWING SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION
This capital habeas corpus case is before the Magistrate Judge on the filing of District
Judge Watson’s Opinion and Order (Doc. No. 83).
Petitioner filed his Motion for Discovery (Doc. No. 72) and his Motion for Evidentiary
Hearing (Doc. No. 73) on June 21, 2011. After Respondent opposed the Motions (Doc. Nos. 74,
75) and Petitioner replied (Doc. No. 76), the Magistrate Judge denied these two Motions on
September 8, 2011 (Doc. No. 77). Petitioner timely objected (Doc. No. 78).
Assuming the authority granted to Magistrate Judges by the then-extant General Order of
Assignment and Reference for the Dayton location of court, the Magistrate Judge filed a
Supplemental Opinion on the Motion (Doc. No. 79). When Petitioner sought an extension of
time to object to the Supplemental Opinion (Doc. No. 80), the Magistrate Judge struck the
Motion by notation order on the notion that parties do not have the right to file a second brief on
appeal to a District Judge of a Magistrate Judge’s order deciding a non-dispositive pretrial
motion.

1

District Judge Watson has now pointed out that the Magistrate Judge’s assumption of
authority to file a supplemental opinion was mistaken. Whatever the General Order of Reference
for Dayton may say or may have said1, this case was referred to the undersigned “with the same
authority given to Magistrate Judge King by the Standing Order2 issued by the district judges
seated in Columbus, Ohio.” (Order, Doc. No. 55.)
Because District Judge Watson has ruled that the Supplemental Opinion (Doc. No. 79)
was filed without authority, it is hereby WITHDRAWN. This case remains pending before
District Judge Watson on Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. No. 78) to the Magistrate Judge’s
Decision and Order Denying Petitioner’s Motions for Discovery and an Evidentiary Hearing
(Doc. No. 77).
In the absence of further order from District Judge Watson, this Order does not affect the
extension of time granted by him to Petitioner to file objections to the Supplemental Opinion not
later than December 30, 2012 (See Doc. No. 83, PageID 2021).
December 1, 2012.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

1

Because of general concerns about the appropriateness of having Magistrate Judges file supplemental reports or
opinions sua sponte, the General Order of Assignment and Reference for Dayton has been amended to eliminate the
authority for such filings absent a specific recommittal order from the assigned District Judge. See General Order
DAY 12-03.
2
The referenced standing orders are Eastern Division Orders No. 91-3 and 95-2 (Opinion and Order, Doc. No. 83,
PageID 2019).
2