Ogle v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

Filing 94

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CORRECT THE RECORD WITHOUT PREJUDICE - Petitioner's Motion to Correct the Record 93 is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal not later than April 17, 2017, if supported by an affidavit of Petitioner stating in as muc h detail as she can recall (1) the nature and extent of the car trouble and (2) the content of the conversation with Chief Judge Sargus' chambers. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 4/5/2017. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS
MELANIE A. OGLE,
Petitioner,

:

- vs -

Case No. 2:15-cv-776
Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

GARY C. MOHR, DIRECTOR,
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
And Correction,
:
Respondent.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CORRECT THE RECORD
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This habeas corpus action is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion to Correct the
Record and to Reconsider and Accept Filing of Petitioner’s Objections . . .(ECF No. 93).
Petitioner asks the Court to reconsider its action striking her Objections because they were filed
March 28, 2017, a day after the deadline for such objections, without an extension of time.
In the body of her Motion to Correct, Ms. Ogle makes a number of statements of possibly
relevant fact which are not supported by sworn testimony, particularly the nature and extent of
the car trouble and the conversation with Chief Judge Sargus’ chambers. The Motion to Correct
the Record is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal not later than April 17, 2017, if
supported by an affidavit of Petitioner stating in as much detail as she can recall (1) the nature
and extent of the car trouble and (2) the content of the conversation with Chief Judge Sargus’
chambers. The Court is particularly interested in the following questions: Did anyone else
observe the car trouble?

Did the trouble occasion any mechanical repairs which can be
1

corroborated by someone else? Was the call to Chief Judge Sargus’ chambers made on a
cellphone or on a landline? What was the location and telephone number from which Petitioner
placed the call?

April 5, 2017.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

2