McKnight v. Warden, Ohio State Penitentiary

Filing 93

ORDER that Petitioners Objections to Magistrates Decision and Order Denying an Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 69) are OVERRULED and the April 6, 2012 Decision and Order (Doc. 64) is AFFIRMED.. Signed by Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott (wam1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Gregory McKnight,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden, Ohio State Penitentiary,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 2:09-cv-059
Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott
ORDER OVERRULING
PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO
MAGISTRATE’S DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING EVIDENTIARY
HEARING

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Gregory McKnight’s Objections to
Magistrate’s Decision and Order Denying Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 69). On April 6, 2012,
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz issued the Decision and Order (Doc. 64) denying Petitioner’s
request for an evidentiary hearing to present evidence regarding his First, Second, Third,
Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Twenty-Seventh, Thirty-Second, Thirty-Third, and Thirty-Fifth Grounds
for Relief. In the pending motion, Petitioner raises objections to the denial of the evidentiary
hearing as to the First, Second, Third, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Thirty-Second, and Thirty-Fifth
Grounds for Relief only.1 For the reasons that follow, the Court will OVERRULE the
Objections and AFFIRM the April 6, 2012 Decision and Order.
I.
Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes magistrate judges to decide
nondispositive matters which have been referred to them. If a party timely files objections to a
magistrate judge’s decision on a nondispositive matter, the district judge must “modify or set
aside any portion of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

1

On October 23, 2012, Magistrate Judge Merz (Doc. 77) issued a Supplemental Opinion on
Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing on the Twenty-Seventh and Thirty-Third Grounds
for Relief. Petitioner has not filed objections to the Supplemental Opinion to date.
1

The clearly erroneous standard applies to a magistrate judge’s findings of fact and the contrary to
law standard to his conclusions of law. See Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F. Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio
1992), aff’d, No. 92-3304, 1994 WL 83265 (6th Cir. Mar. 14, 1994). “A finding is clearly
erroneous where it is against the clear weight of the evidence or where the court is of the definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Galbraith v. Northern Telecom, Inc., 944
F.2d 275, 281 (6th Cir. 1991)), overruled on other grounds, Kline v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 128 F.3d
337 (6th Cir. 1997); see also Hood v. Midwest Sav. Bank, No. C2-97-218, 2001 WL 327723, AT
*2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 22, 2001). A decision is contrary to law “if the magistrate has misinterpreted
or misapplied applicable law.” Hood, 2001 WL 327723, at *2 (internal quotation and citation
omitted).
II.
Petitioner argues in these Objections that Magistrate Judge Merz erred in denying an
evidentiary hearing on his First, Second, Third, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Thirty-Second, and
Thirty-Fifth Grounds for Relief. Petitioner acknowledges that as to each of the relevant Grounds
for Relief, Magistrate Judge Merz and/or this Court previously have denied discovery on the
same issues for which he now seeks an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. 69 at 3–5.) For example,
Magistrate Judge Merz first denied discovery on the First Ground for Relief in the Decision and
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery
(“Discovery Decision and Order”) (Doc. 31) dated February 2, 2011. Petitioner did not file
objections to that aspect of the Discovery Decision and Order and it has become the “law of the
case.” Although the law of the case need not be “rigidly applied” to “reconsideration of an
earlier decision by the same court[,]” it is a useful “management practice” furthering the “logical
progression [of a case] toward judgment.” United States v. Dunbar, 357 F.3d 582, 592–93 (6th

2

Cir. 2004), vacated on other grounds, Dunbar v. United States, 543 U.S. 1099 (2005). A district
court generally will not reconsider a prior ruling unless (1) substantially different evidence is
raised at a subsequent trial, (2) a contrary view of the law is decided by a controlling authority,
or (3) the prior ruling is clearly erroneous or would work a manifest injustice. Miller v. City of
Cincinnati, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, No. 1:08cv550, 2012 WL 1623526, at *3 (S.D. Ohio May 9,
2012).
In the pending Objections, Petitioner has not pointed to substantially different evidence,
pointed to a subsequent decision holding a contrary view of the law, or established that the prior
ruling was clearly erroneous or would work a manifest injustice. Rather, Petitioner merely
restates previously made arguments. Accordingly, the Court will not reconsider its prior ruling
on these issues.
III.
For these reasons, the Petitioner’s Objections to Magistrate’s Decision and Order
Denying an Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 69) are OVERRULED and the April 6, 2012 Decision
and Order (Doc. 64) is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Susan J. Dlott_____________
Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott
United States District Court

3