Brown v. Warden, Warren Correctional Institution
Filing
65
DECISION AND ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Petitioners various objections are without merit and should be overruled. Objections to R&R due by 6/5/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 5/22/18. (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
JEFFREY ANTONIO BROWN,
Petitioner,
:
- vs -
Case No. 3:17-cv-080
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
CHAE HARRIS, Warden,
Warren Correctional Institution,
:
Respondent.
DECISION AND ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is before the Court on Petitioner’s
Objections ECF No. 63) to the Magistrate Judge’s Order to Amend the Caption (ECF No. 56).
Judge Rose has recommitted the matter for reconsideration in light of the Objections (ECF No.
64). Having reconsidered the matter and Petitioner having objected thereto, the Order in question
is VACATED and the caption shall revert to the form set forth above.
The case is also before the Court on a document labeled “Petitioner’s Objections to
Magistrate Judge’s Supplemental Memorandum Motion for Evidentiary Hearing” (ECF No. 57).
Judge Rose has also recommitted this matter (ECF No. 61). In the body of this document,
Petitioner moves the Court for a “Certified Delegation of Authority Order.” (ECF No. 57 at PageID
3973). That request is denied.
Petitioner claims he has challenged the jurisdiction of this Court but then asserts federal
1
court jurisdiction must be proved by the party asserting it. The jurisdiction of this Court in habeas
corpus is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner objects “the entire proceedings done by the
Magistrate Judge, as [Petitioner] did not sing [sic] a consent form to agree to the Magistrate Judge
handling of the preliminary proceeding.” Id. at PageID 3978. No consent of the parties is required
for a referral of a habeas corpus case under 29 U.S.C. § 636(b) which is the authority for referral
in this case. See General Order DAY 13-01.
Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law because “the Magistrate Judge does not meet the lawful standard for all ‘Delegated Judicial
Authority. . .’” Id. He apparently means the Magistrate Judge is not an Article III judge. Id. That
is correct and that is why the Magistrate Judge has filed recommendations on all matters designated
as “dispositive” either by statute or by Sixth Circuit precedent. He concludes by asserting that
somehow Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), did not abolish specialized bodies
of federal common law and this in some unexplained way relates to his asserted Moorish American
Aboriginal and Indigenous status. Id. at PageID 2979. The Magistrate Judge agrees that federal
common law in some respects continued to be recognized after Erie Railroad. What this has to
do with Petitioner’s alleged Moorish American status is completely opaque to the Court.
The case is also before the Court on Petitioner’s Objections to Order Denying Motion for
Extension of Time to File Objection to the Supplemental Opinion on Evidentiary Hearing (ECF
No. 58, objecting to ECF No. 52). Petitioner objects that “the Magistrate Judge does not have
Judicial Authority to issue Orders.” PageID 3981. That is simply not so. Magistrate Judges are
authorized by law (28 U.S.C. § 636(b)) to issue orders on any non-dispositive matter in a case
2
referred to them under that statute. A motion for extension of time is plainly nondispositive.
Petitioner’s various objections are without merit and should be overruled.
May 22, 2018.
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 mail. .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).
3
4
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?