Fields v. Warden Franklin Medical Center

Filing 6

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 3 Report and Recommendations; DENYING Petitioner's objection. Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 10/9/2014. (ds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
GERALD D. FIELDS,
Petitioner,
vs.

Civil Action 2:14-cv-1694
Judge Graham
Magistrate Judge King

WARDEN, FRANKLIN MEDICAL CENTER,
Respondent.

ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petition, ECF 2. On September
25, 2014, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that the
Petition be dismissed for failure to state a claim for habeas corpus
relief. Order and Report and Recommendation, ECF 3.

This matter is

now before the Court on petitioner’s objection to that recommendation.
Objection, ECF 5. The Court will consider the matter de novo.

See 28

U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Petition alleges simply, “Violation of the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments. No substantive law of record filed in this
matter.” Id. at PAGEID# 8. As noted by the Magistrate Judge, the
Petition contains no factual allegations demonstrating that petitioner
is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United
States.
In his objections, petitioner asks that “decision on the
Magistrate’s report

. . . be with[h]eld until Respondent’s answer to

1

the petition, as only the State of Ohio can
of petitioner’s detention.”

. . . show the true cause

Objection, PAGEID# 41. “Without the state

(Respondent) showing that invocation of state substantive law, where
the jurisdictional issue is thus raised, the burden of proof is upon
the Respondent, and put in issue by the answer.”

Id. Petitioner has

also submitted what appears to be a copy of a portion of the docket
sheet in State of Ohio vs. Fields, CR2009-0166 (Ct. Comm. Pl.,
Muskingum County, OH).

Exhibit A, attached to Objection. Petitioner

appears to make specific reference to the entry indicating that an
indictment and request for an arrest warrant were issued on August 12,
2009. Id. at PAGEID 43.
This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the Petition,
even liberally construed, alleges no facts whatsoever that would
support a claim that petitioner was convicted in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States. See Rule 2(c) of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (A
petition must, among other things, “state the facts supporting each
ground. . . .”). Simply put, the Petition does allege a basis for
concluding that petitioner is entitled to relief, nor does it present
a “‘real possibility of constitutional error.’”

Blackledge v.

Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n. 7 (1977)(quoting Advisory Committee Note
to Rule 4, Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases).
Petitioner’s objection to the Report and Recommendation is
DENIED.
AFFIRMED.

The Report and Recommendation, ECF 3, is ADOPTED AND
This action is DISMISSED.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter FINAL JUDGMENT.

2

Moreover, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of
appealability.
Date: October 9, 2014

______s/James L. Graham_______
James L. Graham
United States District Judge

3