Taylor-Stearnes v. Warden Madison Correctional Institution

Filing 20

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 3 Complaint/Writ of Habeas Corpus: The Court 1 GRANTS Mr. Stearnes-Taylor motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis but DENIES his request for Counsel. The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the Court di smiss this action because there is no basis for awarding Mr. Stearnes-Taylor teh relief he requests. Objections to R&R due within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Report. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 8/31/2011. (er1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT F. STEARNES-TAYLOR,
Plaintiff / Petitioner,
Civil Action 2:11-cv-218
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge E.A. Preston Deavers

v.

THE STATE OF OHIO,
Defendant / Respondent.

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff-Petitioner, Robert F. Stearnes-Taylor, filed this action on March 11, 2011,
seeking in forma pauperis status. This matter is before the Court for consideration of Mr.
Stearnes-Taylor’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1), which the
Court GRANTS and his request for Counsel (ECF No. 1-2), which the Court DENIES. The
Court is unable to ascertain the nature of Mr. Stearnes-Taylor’s claims from the unnamed
“complaint” that he filed.1 Regardless of whether the complaint is characterized as a petition for
writ of habeas corpus, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court dismiss this action
because there is no basis for awarding Mr. Stearnes-Taylor the relief he requests.
In his unnamed complaint (ECF No. 3), which is in the form of a letter written to Ohio
Attorney General Mike DeWine, Mr. Stearnes-Taylor references his state and federal

1

On his civil cover sheet, he checked the box for civil rights habeas corpus petition, but
he also checked boxes indicating that the nature of his suit was contract, torts, real property, and
property rights, among others. The Clerk docketed his unnamed complaint as a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 3.)

convictions, but does not appear to challenge them. He asks Mr. Dewine to “work out [his]
release from the[] attached Federal Sentence . . . .” (Id. at 6.) He also appears to request “a
credit-line backed by the state of Ohio” or the issuance of “community building bonds” to
finance the charitable activities he intends to pursue upon his release. (Id.) In a later letter to the
Court (ECF No. 16), Mr. Stearnes-Taylor again indicates that he is requesting the Court to order
the state of Ohio to issue community building bonds and to have Ohio’s leaders work with him
on his charitable pursuits. He expresses his concern that he may not be awarded relief in time
for his release, which, at the time, he anticipated would be July 26, 2011.
Regardless of whether the Court construes Mr. Stearnes-Taylor’s unnamed complaint as
a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the Court is required to conduct a preliminary review to
determine if he may proceed. If construed as a habeas action, Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (Habeas Rules) provides that district
courts “must promptly examine” state prisoner habeas petitions and must dismiss the petition
“[i]f it plainly appears . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” If not, the Court must
screen the action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A to identify cognizable claims and to
recommend sua sponte dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint, or any portion of it, which is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
The undersigned has reviewed Mr. Stearnes-Taylor’s unnamed complaint, and finds that
he has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In addition, the undersigned
finds that he is not entitled to the relief he requests (i.e., an order requiring Ohio to finance his
charitable pursuits upon his release). Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court sua
sponte DISMISS Mr. Stearnes-Taylor’s action.
2

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that
party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and
Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in
question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and
waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat’l Latex
Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the magistrate
judge’s recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the district
court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that
defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed, appellate
review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994
(6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to specify the
issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation omitted)).

Date: August 31, 2011

/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
United States Magistrate Judge

3