Scott v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institution
ORDER denying 14 Motion to Reinstate; adopting Report and Recommendations re 16 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 1/5/2017. (cw)(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
ANTHONY A. SCOTT,
Case No. 2:15-cv-2638
JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY
Magistrate Judge King
On April 5, 2016, this Court dismissed this action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254, without prejudice, as unexhausted. Order (ECF No. 12; Judgment (ECF No.
13). Petitioner thereafter filed a motion to reopen these proceedings pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the basis that he has now exhausted his state court
remedies. Motion to Reinstate, Refiled [sic] and/or Reopen Habeas Corpus Action Filed July 22,
2015 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60) (ECF No. 14). On December 6, 2016, the Magistrate Judge
recommended that Petitioner’s motion be denied. Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16.)
Although the parties were advised of the right to object to the recommendation, and of
the consequences of their failure to do so, no objections have been filed.
The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16) is ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED.
Petitioner’s Motion to Reinstate, Refiled [sic] and/or Reopen Habeas Corpus Action Filed July
22, 2015 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60) (ECF No. 14) is DENIED. Petitioner remains free, however, to file
a new federal habeas petition in a separate action in order to present his exhausted claims. See,
e.g., Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485-86 (2000)(habeas petition filed after an initial petition
was dismissed for failure to exhaust is not a “second or successive” petition within the meaning
of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)).
DATED: January 5, 2017
s/Algenon L. Marbley
Algenon L. Marbley
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?