Smith v. Warden, Southeastern Correctional Institution

Filing 12

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 8 Report and Recommendations.; denying 2 Motion for Bond. Signed by Judge George C Smith on 8/5/14. (lvw1)

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

GENERAL SMITH III,
Petitioner,
Case No. 2:14-CV-554
Judge Smith
Magistrate Judge King

v.
WARDEN, SOUTHEASTERN
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent.
ORDER

On June 24, 2014, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that Petitioner’s
Motion for Bond, Doc. No. 2, be denied. Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 8. This matter
is now before the Court on Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent Opposition for Bond, Doc. No. 10,
which the Court construes as an objection to the Report and Recommendation. Respondent has
filed a Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition, Doc. No. 11. For the reasons that follow,
Petitioner’s Objection, Doc. No. 10, is DENIED. The Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 8,
is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Petitioner’s Motion for Bond, Doc. No. 2, is DENIED.
Petitioner insists that Respondent has conceded that Petitioner is entitled to relief, and
contends that this action is timely but that Respondent is intentionally delaying this case.
Objection, PageID# 128-131PageID# 130-31. Because his Petition, Doc. No. 1, is meritorious,
Petitioner argues, he is entitled to release on bond. As noted supra, the Magistrate Judge
recommended that Petitioner’s motion for release on bond be denied.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report
and Recommendation. As discussed by the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner has failed to establish

that exceptional circumstances warrant his release on bond pending resolution of this case.
Dotson v. Clark, 900 F.2d 77, 79 (6th Cir. 1990). The state court conviction attacked in this
action is presumptively valid and, thus far, the record fails to reflect a substantial claim of law.
Id. at 79. See also Lee v. Jabe, 989 F.2d 869, 871 (6th Cir. 1993). Moreover, and Petitioner’s
representation to the contrary notwithstanding, Respondent has not conceded that Petitioner is
entitled to the relief sought by him in this action. Similarly, the record does not support
Petitioner’s accusation that the Respondent has intentionally delayed the case by requesting an
extension of time to file a response to the Petition. The only issue now before the Court is
whether Petitioner has established a claim or facts that warrant the extraordinary relief of release
on bail. This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner has not.
Petitioner’s Objection, Doc. No. 10, is DENIED. The Report and Recommendation,
Doc. No. 8, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Petitioner’s Motion for Bond, Doc. No. 2, is
DENIED.

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

2