McKnight v. Warden, Ohio State Penitentiary

Filing 72

ORDER APPROVING PROPOSED SCHEDULE - Petitioner requested until June 4, 2012, to file his brief, and suggested that the Warden have forty-five days to respond and Petitioner have twenty days to reply to the response. Petitioner's proposed schedule is approved. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 5/16/2012. (kpf1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
GREGORY McKNIGHT,
:
Petitioner,

Case No. 2:09-cv-059
:

Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-vsDAVID BOBBY, Warden,
:
Respondent.

ORDER APPROVING PROPOSED SCHEDULE

In his Notice of Intent to File and Proposed Schedule, Petitioner proposed to file his brief
“explaining why the state court decisions on the denial of the effective assistance of trial and
appellate counsel was contrary to or any unreasonable application of clearly established federal law
as enunciated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) and Wiggins v Smith, 539 U.S. 510
(2003), and to address what impact if any the very recent Supreme Court case of Martinez v. Ryan, 132
S. Ct. 1309 (March 20, 2012) may have the on the Court’s resolution of these claims.” (Notice, Doc.
No. 66, PageID 1777).

Petitioner requested until June 4, 2012, to file that brief, and suggested that

the Warden have forty-five days to respond and Petitioner have twenty days to reply to the response.
Petitioner’s proposed schedule is approved.
May 16, 2012.

s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

-1-