Bays v. Warden Ohio State Penitentiary, 3:08-cv-076. (2017)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20171204d23
Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 01, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 01, 2017
Summary: RECOMMITTAL ORDER THOMAS M. ROSE , District Judge . This capital habeas corpus case is before the Court on Objections/Appeal by Petitioner (Doc. No. 267) to the Magistrate Judge's Substituted Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 265). The District Judge has preliminarily considered the Objections and believes they will be more appropriately resolved after further analysis by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), this matter is hereby returned to the Magis
Summary: RECOMMITTAL ORDER THOMAS M. ROSE , District Judge . This capital habeas corpus case is before the Court on Objections/Appeal by Petitioner (Doc. No. 267) to the Magistrate Judge's Substituted Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 265). The District Judge has preliminarily considered the Objections and believes they will be more appropriately resolved after further analysis by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), this matter is hereby returned to the Magist..
More
RECOMMITTAL ORDER
THOMAS M. ROSE, District Judge.
This capital habeas corpus case is before the Court on Objections/Appeal by Petitioner (Doc. No. 267) to the Magistrate Judge's Substituted Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 265).
The District Judge has preliminarily considered the Objections and believes they will be more appropriately resolved after further analysis by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), this matter is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge with instructions to file a supplemental report analyzing the Objections and any objections filed by Petitioner and making recommendations based on that analysis.
Source: Leagle
