Waddy v. Coyle, et al
Filing
259
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 256 ). Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 10/6/2014. (mr1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
WARREN WADDY,
Petitioner,
vs.
NORMAN ROBINSON, Warden,
Respondent.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:98-cv-84
Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING
THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 256)
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United
States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate
Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and, on September 17, 2014,
submitted a Report and Recommendations. (Doc. 256). The Magistrate Judge concluded
that Grounds for Relief Seventeen and Eighteen should be dismissed without prejudice as
moot because they are related to an Ohio lethal injection protocol which has been
superseded. (Id.) Although Petitioner indicates he disagrees with the mootness finding,
he has expressly waived any objection to the Report and Recommendations. (Doc. 258
at 6).
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has
reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all
of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does
determine that such Report and Recommendations should be and is hereby adopted in its
entirety. Accordingly:
1. The Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 256) is
ADOPTED in its entirety; and
2. Grounds for Relief Seventeen and Eighteen of Petitioner’s Second Amended
Petition (Doc. 208) are DISMISSED without prejudice as MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 10/6/2014
/s/Timothy S. Black
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge
2
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?