SMITH v. WARDEN, LEBANON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 1:11-cv-240. (2012)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20120301e89
Visitors: 8
Filed: Feb. 29, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 29, 2012
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL R. MERZ, Magistrate Judge. This habeas corpus case is before the Court sua sponte on consideration of the docket upon transfer from Magistrate Judge Litkovitz. There is currently pending a Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 15) filed by Judge Litkovitz and recommending that Petitioner's pro se Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. No. 3) be denied. In the opinion of the undersigned, a motion for an evidentiary hearing in a habeas corpus case is a non-dispositive motion whic
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL R. MERZ, Magistrate Judge. This habeas corpus case is before the Court sua sponte on consideration of the docket upon transfer from Magistrate Judge Litkovitz. There is currently pending a Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 15) filed by Judge Litkovitz and recommending that Petitioner's pro se Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. No. 3) be denied. In the opinion of the undersigned, a motion for an evidentiary hearing in a habeas corpus case is a non-dispositive motion which..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL R. MERZ, Magistrate Judge.
This habeas corpus case is before the Court sua sponte on consideration of the docket upon transfer from Magistrate Judge Litkovitz.
There is currently pending a Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 15) filed by Judge Litkovitz and recommending that Petitioner's pro se Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. No. 3) be denied. In the opinion of the undersigned, a motion for an evidentiary hearing in a habeas corpus case is a non-dispositive motion which Magistrate Judges are authorized to determine, rather than making a recommendation to the assigned District Judge. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendations are WITHDRAWN.
Magistrate Judge Litkovitz's Report correctly sets forth the governing law. Applying that law to the Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, the undersigned concludes that Petitioner has not established his entitlement to an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the Motion for Evidentiary Hearing is denied without prejudice to its renewal by counsel upon compliance with the conditions for such a hearing set in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214)(the "AEDPA").
Source: Leagle
