Hudson v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

Filing 26

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY - Objections to R&R due by 3/25/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 3/8/2016. (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 ON MOTION FOR
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

This habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. ' 2254 is before the Court on Petitioner’s
Motion for a Certificate of Appealability (ECF No. 25).
Petitioner has appealed from Judge Rice’s Decision and Entry of February 9, 2016, He
intends to raise on appeal his claim that the Court erred in not addressing his Objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations filed December 2, 2015.
Upon examination of the docket, there is no Report and Recommendations filed
December 2, 2015.

Moreover, Hudson has not shown, as required for a certificate of

appealability, that reasonable jurists would disagree with Judge Rice’s decision of February 9,
2016. Judge Rice found that, despite a lengthy extension of time to file objections to the Report
and Recommendations on the merits, Hudson filed no such objections until six weeks after the
1

extended deadline (ECF No. 23, PageID 997). Hudson has not shown that any reasonable jurist
would disagree with that conclusion.

March 8, 2016.
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