ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUSAN J. DLOTT, District Judge.

This capita habeas corpus case is before the Court on Respondent's Objections (Doc. No. 13) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 11) and to the Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 17).

This is Raymond Tibbetts second-in-time habeas corpus petition seeking relief from his conviction for aggravated murder and sentence of death. This Court denied relief on the first petition and that denial was affirmed. Tibbetts v. Bradshaw, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13881 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 29, 2006), aff'd., 633 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2011), cert. denied sub nom. Tibbetts v. Bobby, 132 S.Ct. 238 (2011). The Warden seeks dismissal of the instant Petition on the ground that it requires certification from the Sixth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 before it can proceed because it is a second-or-successive petition within the meaning of that statute (Motion, Doc. No. 7).

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has reviewed de novo the Magistrate Judge's recommenilations in the Report and Supplemental Report. Having done so, the Court finds that they are not erroneous. Every judge of this Court to consider the question has found that a habeas corpus petition challenging a "new" lethal injection protocol for carrying out the sentence of death is not a second or successive petition and may therefore proceed in this Court without advance certification under 28 U.S.C. § 2244. See Response to Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 8, PageID 110 citing Raglin v. Mitchell, No. 1:00-cv-767, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141199, at 94 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 29, 2013)(Barrett, J.); Smith v. Pineda, No. 1:12-cv-196, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121019, at 13-14 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 27, 2012) (Merz, M.J.), supplemented by 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15407, at 2-4 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 26, 2012), then adopted by 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171759, at 2 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 4, 2012) (Rose, J.); Chinn v. Bradshaw, No. 3:02-cv-512, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93083, at 8-9 (S.D. Ohio July 5, 2012) (Sargus, J.) Furthermore, the judges of this Court have continued to hold that Ohio's lethal injection protocol may be attacked in habeas corpus, following Adams v. Bradshaw, 644 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2011), and concluding Scott v. Houk, 760 F.3d 497 (6th Cir. 2014), does not overruled Adams.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendations and the Supplemental Report and Recommendations are ADOPTED and the Warden's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 7) is DENIED. The Warden's alternative motion to transfer this case to the Sixth Circuit (Doc. No. 7) is DENIED.