Dixon v. Warden Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

Filing 21

ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 20 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 1/18/13. (kje1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
WILLIAM R. DIXON,

:

Case No. 3:11-cv-150

:

District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Petitioner,
vs.
WARDEN, SOUTHERN OHIO
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,

:

Respondent.
:
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO
THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. 20)
____________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court upon a filing by Petitioner, through counsel, titled
“Objections to Report and Recommendation” (doc. 20). In that filing, counsel makes objections
to the undersigned’s January 7, 2013 Report and Recommendation (doc. 19). See doc. 20.
However, counsel also requests an extension of time for Petitioner to file separate pro se
objections. See id. at PageID 2193. The Court accepts this filing (doc. 20) as Petitioner’s
objections to the Report and Recommendation. Nonetheless, recognizing the time period for
filing objections has not yet expired, the Court ADVISES Petitioner that, if he wishes to file pro se
supplemental objections and needs more time to do so, he should file a motion for an extension of
time. Further, the Court first ADVISES Petitioner that he does not have a right to hybrid
representation in these habeas corpus proceedings -- i.e., Petitioner cannot simultaneously be
represented by counsel and make pro se filings. Accord Ahmed v. Houk, No. 2:07-cv-658, 2008
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109687, at *5-7 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 16, 2008). Therefore, before Petitioner files
any pro se supplemental objections to the Report and Recommendation, counsel must first

withdraw from his representation of Petitioner in compliance with S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 83.4(c). If
Petitioner does not take such action, the Court will proceed on the objections filed by Petitioner’s
counsel.
Counsel is ORDERED to send a copy of this Order to Petitioner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge

January 18, 2013

2