Hudson v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Filing
15
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - It is respectfully recommended that Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration 12 be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 12/10/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 11/23/2015. (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
RAYSHAUN HUDSON,
Petitioner,
:
- vs -
Case No. 3:15-cv-146
District Judge Walter Herbert Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
CHARLOTTE JENKINS, Warden,
Correctional Institution,
:
Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. ' 2254 is before the Court on Petitioner’s
Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s final judgment dismissing his habeas corpus petition
(ECF No. 12). Hudson complained that he had never received the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendations which recommended dismissal and thus never had a fair opportunity to
object.
In response, the Magistrate Judge ordered that Hudson be provided with a new copy of
the Report and Recommendations and then be allowed to file a new motion to amend the
judgment accompanied by any objections he had to the Report (Order, ECF No. 13). The Court
set a date for filing the new motion for November 13, 2015. The Clerk then mailed a new copy
of the Report and the Order to Petitioner on October 27, 2015.
The time for response has now expired and Petitioner has failed to file anything in
1
response. It is therefore respectfully recommended that his Motion for Reconsideration be
DENIED.
November 23, 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?