Thornton v. State Of Ohio

Filing 28

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING THORNTONS OBJECTIONS (Doc. # 27 ) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'SREPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THORNTONS MOTION TO REOPEN THE JUDGMENT (Doc. # 26 ) IN ITS ENTIRETY; AND DENYING THORNTON'S MOTION TO REOPEN. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 07/29/11. (pb1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
MARK THORNTON
Case No. C-3:10-cv-236
Petitioner,
Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-vSTATE OF OHIO

Respondent.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING THORNTON’S OBJECTIONS
(Doc. #27) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS; ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THORNTON’S MOTION TO
REOPEN THE JUDGMENT (Doc. #26) IN ITS ENTIRETY; AND
DENYING THORNTON’S MOTION TO REOPEN
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to pro se Petitioner Mark Thornton’s
(“Thornton’s”) Objections (doc. #27) to Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz’s Report and
Recommendations on Thornton’s Motion To Reopen the Judgment (doc. #26). On June 28,
2011, Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz filed the Report and Recommendations (doc. #26) and
Thornton objected (doc. #27). The time has run and the Warden has not responded to Thornton’s
objections. Thornton’s 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. Upon said review, the Court
finds that Thornton’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations on
Thornton’s Motion To Reopen the Judgment are not well-taken, and they are hereby
OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations is adopted in its entirety.
Thornton’s Motion To Reopen Judgment (doc. #25) is DENIED. This Court has already

determined that its final decision would not be debatable among reasonable jurists and has
denied a certificate of appealability. Thus an appeal would be without merit.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Twenty-Ninth Day of July, 2011.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Mark Thornton at his last address of record

-2-