Waddy v. Coyle, et al
Filing
206
DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING RESPONDENT'S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOCS. 184 , 197 ). Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 1/3/2013. (mr1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
WARREN WADDY,
Petitioner,
vs.
RALPH COYLE, WARDEN,
Respondent.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:98-cv-84
Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING RESPONDENT’S OBJECTIONS TO
THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOC. 184, 197)
This capital habeas corpus case is before the Court following the Decision and
Order of the Magistrate Judge granting Petitioner Leave to File an Amended Petition
adding two additional grounds for relief: (1) that Petitioner’s “execution will violate the
Eighth Amendment because Ohio’s lethal injection protocol will result in cruel and
unusual punishment[;]” and (2) that Petitioner’s “execution will violate the Fourteenth
Amendment because Ohio’s lethal injection protocol will deprive him of equal protection
of the law.” (Doc. 182). Respondent filed Objections to the Decision and Order. (Doc.
184) Petitioner filed a Response to Respondent’s Objections. (Doc. 185).
Subsequently, the Court recommitted these issues to the Magistrate Judge for
further analysis. (Doc. 187). Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge issued a Supplemental
Opinion and Recommendation concluding that Respondent’s Objections are without merit
under the applicable standard of review. (Doc. 188). Respondent filed additional
Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Supplemental Opinion and Recommendation. (Doc.
197). Petitioner filed a Response to Respondent’s additional Objections. (Doc. 198).
These issues are now ripe for the Court’s consideration.
Both parties acknowledge that the Court’s review of the Magistrate Judge’s
Decision and Order is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides that, following
the issuance of an order by a Magistrate Judge on a nondispositive issue, “[a] party may
serve and file objections to the order within 14 days[,]” and thereafter, “[t]he district
judge . . . must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order
that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” The Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s
factual findings under the “clearly erroneous” standard and the Magistrate Judge’s legal
conclusions “under the more lenient ‘contrary to law’ standard.” Itskin v. Gibson, No.
2:10-cv-689, 2012 WL 787400, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2012) (citing Gandee v. Glaser,
785 F.Supp. 684 (S.D. Ohio 1992), aff'd 19 F.3d 1432 (6th Cir.1994) (table)). Under both
standards, however, the Court must “provide considerable deference to the determinations
made by the magistrate judge.” Moran v. Svete, C-3-05-072, 2012 WL 1142929, at *1
(S.D. Ohio Apr. 4, 2012) (citations omitted).
Here, Respondent contends that the Decision and Order of the Magistrate Judge is
contrary to law for two reasons: (1) Petitioner’s claims challenging Ohio’s lethal injection
protocol are not cognizable in habeas review; and (2) Petitioner’s claims are barred by the
statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D). In reviewing a nondispositive order
pursuant to the “contrary to law” standard, “[t]his Court’s review . . . is ‘plenary.’”
Gandee, 785 F. Supp. at 686 (citation omitted). This Court “‘may overturn any
-2-
conclusions of law which contradict or ignore applicable precepts of law, as found in the
Constitution, statutes, or case precedent.” Id. (citation omitted).
With regard to Respondent’s contention that Petitioner’s proposed amendments are
not cognizable in habeas, the Magistrate Judge appropriately cited binding Sixth Circuit
precedent holding otherwise, i.e., that challenges to Ohio’s legal injection procedures are
cognizable in a habeas petition. Adams v. Bradshaw, 644 F.3d 481, 482-83 (6th Cir.
2011). Concerning Respondent’s contention that Petitioner’s amendments are barred by
the statute of limitations, the Court is unable to conclude that the Magistrate Judge’s
conclusions are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Chinn v. Bradshaw, No. 3:02cv-512, 2012 WL 2674518, *3-4 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 5, 2012).
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth by the Magistrate Judge (Docs. 182, 188),
which the Court must give considerable deference, and for the reasons set forth above,
Respondent’s Objections (Docs. 184, 197) are OVERRULED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Timothy S. Black
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge
Date: 1/3/13
-3-
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?