White v. Warden, Madison Correctional Institution

Filing 14

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - It is respectfully recommended that Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 8/10/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 7/22/2015. (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
GREGORY G. WHITE,
Petitioner,

:

- vs -

Case No. 3:15-cv-092
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

RHONDA RICHARDS, Warden,
Madison Correctional Institution,
:
Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 13).
Petitioner filed his Traverse in this case on July 17, 2015 (ECF No. 11). That made the
case ripe for decision and the Magistrate Judge’s filed a Report and Recommendations on July
21, 2015, recommending dismissal of the case (ECF No. 12).
Rule 12 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases permits (but does not require) application
of the Rules of Civil Procedure “to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any statutory
provisions or these rules.” Use of summary judgment practice in habeas corpus cases is usually
inappropriate because there are usually factual issues presented by the pleadings.
In this particular case, Petitioner asserts he is entitled to summary judgment because it is
undisputed that his parole was revoked April 22, 2005, but no sanction was imposed until May

1

27, 2014.
For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendations, the Magistrate Judge is not
persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. In sum, revocation of parole was the sanction imposed on
White in April 2005 and the hearing held in May 2014 was to determine if he should be reparoled. The Motion for Summary Judgment should be DENIED.
July 22, 2015.
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 one of the methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F). 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