Wright v. Warden Lebanon Corr

Filing 63

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE ORDER OF AUGUST 29, 2017 - Objections to R&R due by 9/28/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 9/14/2017. (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
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
TIMOTHY D. WRIGHT,
Petitioner,

:

- vs -

Case No. 3:02-cv-063
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

HARRY RUSSELL, Warden,
Lebanon Correctional Institution,
:
Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM THE ORDER OF AUGUST 29, 2017

This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion (ECF No. 62) for
Relief from the Court’s Order of August 29, 2017 (ECF No. 61), denying Petitioner’s prior
Motion to Reopen Judgment (ECF No. 56).
Wright raises no question that was not already considered by this Court and rejected.
While it is true that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction whose jurisdiction must be
proved when it is challenged, the Report cited 28 U.S.C. § 2241 which gives federal courts
jurisdiction in habeas corpus, thus creating a forum in which the right to habeas corpus,
enshrined in the Constitution, may be exercised. That is what Wright did when he invoked the
habeas corpus jurisdiction of this Court back in 2002.
Because Wright raises no new questions this Court has not already considered and
because he has not shown any error of law in the August 29, 2017, his Motion should be

1

DENIED.

September 14, 2017.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this Report
and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to seventeen
days because this Report is being served by mail. .Such objections shall specify the portions of
the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the
objections. If the Report and Recommendations are based in whole or in part upon matters
occurring of record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the
transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate
Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may
respond to another party=s objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See
United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
153-55 (1985).

2