Martin v. Warden Lebanon Correctional Institution

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge George C Smith on 3/19/14. (gcs2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

WILLIAM C. MARTIN,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-878
JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH
MAGISTRATE JUDGE ABEL

v.
ERNIE MOORE, WARDEN
LEBANON CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION,
Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER
On December 16, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254
be dismissed.

Petitioner has filed an Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation. Doc. No. 19. Respondent has filed a Response. Doc. No. 20. For the
reasons that follow, Petitioner’s Objection, Doc. 19, is OVERRULED.
Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation of dismissal of all of his
claims. He contends that his claim that his convictions were against the manifest weight may
properly be considered in these proceedings. Petitioner again argues that the evidence was
constitutionally insufficient to sustain his convictions. He raises all of the same arguments he
previously raised. He contends that the factual findings of the state appellate court constitute an
unreasonable determination of the facts in view of the evidence that was presented. He argues at
length that all of his claims warrant relief, and makes all of the same arguments he previously
presented. Additionally, Petitioner asserts that he is actually innocent of the charges against him,
and a victim of a manifest miscarriage of justice. See Objection.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court has conducted a de novo review. For the
reasons already well detailed in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Petitioner’s
Objection is not well taken. A claim regarding the manifest weight of the evidence is not
properly addressed in these proceedings. Further, Petitioner has brought forth no new evidence
not already available at trial indicating that he is actually innocent of the charges against him.
Further, he has failed to rebut the presumption of correctness afforded to the factual findings of
the state appellate court. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(e).
Respondent requests this Court to deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability. See
Response. However, Petitioner has not requested a certificate of appealability, so the Court need
not address that issue at this time.
Petitioner’s Objection, Doc. No. 19, is OVERRULED.

The Report and

Recommendation is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This action is hereby DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ George C. Smith ___________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2