Dixon v. Warden Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

Filing 61

DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 1/30/25. (pb)(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
WILLIAM R. DIXON,
Petitioner,

:

- vs -

Case No. 3:11-cv-150
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

WARDEN, Southern Ohio
Correctional Facility,
:
Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER

This habeas corpus case, brought pro se by Petitioner William Dixon under 28 U.S.C. §
2254, is before the Court on Petitioner’s Response to Brief and Memorandum (Doc. No. 56) which
the Court construes as Petitioner’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendations (Doc. No. 55) recommending denial of Petitioner’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. No. 54). As required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court
has reviewed the objections de novo with particular attention to any specific portion of the Report
to which objection has been made. Having done so, the Court finds the Report is well taken.
Therefore, the Report is ADOPTED and Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
As the Magistrate Judge concluded, Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) does not apply to state criminal
convictions and a motion under that rule can only be made by the United States Attorney.

1

DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Thursday, January 30, 2025.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2