Harris II v. State Of Ohio

Filing 18

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Petitioner's "Motion to Enter 28 USCS & 2347 & 1338" (ECF No. 17) is plainly untimely and should be denied on that basis. Objections to R&R due by 2/21/2023. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 2/7/2023. (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
RONALD HARRIS II,
Petitioner,

:

- vs -

Case No. 3:15-cv-179
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

WARDEN, Chillicothe
Correctional Institution,
:
Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This habeas corpus case, brought pro se by Petitioner Ronald Harris II, is before the Court
on what the Clerk has docketed as “Motion to Enter 28 USCS & 2347 & 1338.” (ECF No. 17),
filed electronically on February 3, 2023. The Motion itself is sixteen pages long and has 415 pages
of exhibits. It does not include any intelligible request for relief except “to receive a full scale
hearing within our United States District Courts.” The Motion has been docketed in the above case
because it appears to be Harris’s most recent.
Harris has no open cases in which he could be given a “full scale hearing,” so it seems most
logical to regard his Motion as one to reopen the judgment in his most recent case. As a postjudgment motion, it requires a report and recommendation from an assigned Magistrate Judge.
Motions to reopen final judgments are considered under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Motions
under that Rule have a deadline of one year from the date of judgment. Final appealable judgment
was entered in this case on October 16, 2015 (ECF No. 12). Harris attempted to appeal but was
1

denied the required certificate of appealability both by this Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals (ECF Nos. 11 & 15), most recently May 5, 2016. Therefore the instant Motion is plainly
untimely and should be denied on that basis.

February 7, 2023.

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. Because this document is being served by mail, three days are added under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 6, but service is complete when the document is mailed, not when it is received. 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. 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.
Notice Regarding Page Limitation
Local Rules of this Court place a limit of twenty pages on filings. Should Petitioner decide
to file objections, which is his right, he is reminded that they may not exceed twenty pages in
length, including any exhibits. Objections longer than the permitted twenty pages will be stricken
or ignored.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

2