Bays v. Warden Ohio State Penitentiary

Filing 134

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING BAY'S OBJECTIONS (Doc. 127 ) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 109 ) AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 109 ) IN ITS ENTIRETY. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 8/6/12. (kje1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
RICHARD BAYS
Case No. 3:08-cv-076
Petitioner,
Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-vWARDEN, Ohio State Penitentiary

Respondent.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING BAYS’ OBJECTIONS (Doc. #127)
TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. #109) AND ADOPTING THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc.
#109) IN ITS ENTIRETY
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Petitioner Richard Bays’ (“Bays’”)
Objections (doc. #127) to Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz’s Report and Recommendations
(doc. #109) regarding Bays’ Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Report and
Recommendations was issued on February 21, 2012. On June 7, 2012, Bays filed objections
(doc. #127) and on July 20, 2012, the Warden filed a Response to Bays’ objections (doc. #131).
On July 30, 2012, with leave of Court, Bays filed a reply to the Warden’s Response. (Doc. #
132.) Bays’ Objections are, therefore, ripe for decision.
As required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 72(b), the
District Judge has made a de novo review of the record in this case and particularly of the
matters raised in Bays’ Objections, the Warden’s Response and Bays’ Reply. Upon said review,
the Court finds that Bay’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations
are not well taken and they are OVERRULED.

Bays’ Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and dismissed with prejudice. The
Court recognizes that Bays has filed an Amended Petition (doc. #122) and a Motion for
Certificate of Appealability (doc. #128). These will presumably be the subject of one or more
future Report and Recommendations.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Sixth Day of August, 2012.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

-2-