Henley v. Warden Richland Correctional Institution

Filing 39

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS 24 , 29 , 34 , 38 ; ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 21 , SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 26 , SUBSTITUTED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 31 AND SUPPLEMENT TO SUBSTITUTED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 37 ; DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 1 AND TERMINATING CASE. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 11-7-2018. (de)(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
BRIAN DAMONT HENLEY,

:
Case No. 3:17-cv-421
:
Petitioner,
:
Judge Thomas M. Rose
:
v.
:
:
DAVID MARQUIS, Warden,
:
Richland Correctional Institution,
:
:
Respondent.
:
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOCS. 24, 29, 34, 38);
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 21), SUPPLEMENTAL
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 26), SUBSTITUTED REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 31) AND SUPPLEMENT TO SUBSTITUTED
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 37); DISMISSING WITH
PREJUDICE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DOC. 1);
AND TERMINATING CASE
______________________________________________________________________________
This habeas corpus action is before the Court on Petitioner Brian D. Henley’s Objections
(Docs. 24, 29, 34, 38) to Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz’s Report and Recommendations (Doc.
21), Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Doc. 26), Substituted Report and
Recommendations (Doc. 31) and Supplement to the Substituted Report and Recommendations
(Doc. 37). Magistrate Judge Merz has recommended that the Court dismiss with prejudice
Henley’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). Henley objected to each of Magistrate
Judge Merz’s entries in this matter, which is now ripe for the Court’s review.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court
has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court finds that
Henley’s Objections (Docs. 24, 29, 34, 38) are not well-taken and they are hereby OVERRULED.
The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 21), Supplemental Report and

Recommendations (Doc. 26), Substituted Report and Recommendations (Doc. 31) and
Supplement to the Substituted Report and Recommendations (Doc. 37) in their entirety 1 and
DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Henley’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). As
reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Henley is denied a certificate of
appealability. The Court further certifies to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be objectively
frivolous and therefore Henley should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Wednesday, November 7, 2018.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

For the sake of enhancing judicial economy on review, Magistrate Judge Merz entered the Substituted
Report and Recommendations (Doc. 31) to replace his prior Reports and Recommendations (Docs. 21,
26) in this matter. In the interest of ensuring the completeness of the record, however, the Court has
adopted all four of Magistrate Judge Merz’s entries.

2