Thompson v. Warden, Warren Correctional Institution

Filing 99

ORDER denying Petitioner's Motion to the Court for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's denial of Petitioner's Motion to Amend Ground Eight 97 . The Magistrate Judge sua sponte extends Thompsons time to object to the Magistrate Judge's most recent decision on reconsideration to and including August 3, 2020. The Magistrate Judge will not treat the case as for ripe for decision until Judge Rose decides any such objections. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 7/21/2020. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Case: 3:18-cv-00117-TMR-MRM Doc #: 99 Filed: 07/21/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 3236

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
CRAIG A. THOMPSON,
Petitioner,

:

- vs -

Case No. 3:18-cv-117
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

CHAE HARRIS, Warden,
Warren Correctional Institution
:
Respondent.

ORDER

This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion to the Court which is
yet another request for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s denial of Petitioner’s Motion to
Amend Ground Eight (ECF No. 97).
The Magistrate Judge denied Thompson’s Motion to Amend Ground Eight on June 12,
2020 (ECF No. 81). On June 25, 2020, Thompson filed a Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No.
86) which the Magistrate Judge denied (ECF No. 87). Thompson then filed a Motion to Amend
the Judgment and Supplemental Motion to Amend the Judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e)(ECF
Nos. 90 and 91). The Magistrate Judge construed these as motions for reconsideration because
there was no relevant final judgment to amend and then denied them on the merits (ECF No. 93).
While trial judges are permitted to reconsider interlocutory decisions made prior to
judgment, they are not obliged to do so. Thompson has been given more than adequate opportunity
to argue his case for adding the proposed new sub-claim to Ground Eight and the Magistrate Judge
declines to reconsider it further.
1

Case: 3:18-cv-00117-TMR-MRM Doc #: 99 Filed: 07/21/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 3237

A litigant who disagrees with a Magistrate Judge’s decision on a non-dispositive pretrial
matter has the right to object and obtain review by the assigned District Judge. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).
The Magistrate Judge sua sponte extends Thompson’s time to object to the Magistrate Judge’s
most recent decision on reconsideration to and including August 3, 2020. The Magistrate Judge
will not treat the case as for ripe for decision until Judge Rose decides any such objections.

July 21, 2020.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

2