Jones v. Warden, Marion Correctional Institution, 1:17-cv-741. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20190214908
Visitors: 6
Filed: Feb. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER KAREN L. LITKOVITZ , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court. This matter is before the Court on petitioner's "Motion for the Relief From Judgment and Opposition to the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss." (Doc. 24). In a Report and Recommendation issued this date, the undersigned has considered petitioner's opposition to the motion to dismiss. To the extent that petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Court's December 13, 2018 Order,
Summary: ORDER KAREN L. LITKOVITZ , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court. This matter is before the Court on petitioner's "Motion for the Relief From Judgment and Opposition to the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss." (Doc. 24). In a Report and Recommendation issued this date, the undersigned has considered petitioner's opposition to the motion to dismiss. To the extent that petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Court's December 13, 2018 Order, h..
More
ORDER
KAREN L. LITKOVITZ, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court. This matter is before the Court on petitioner's "Motion for the Relief From Judgment and Opposition to the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss." (Doc. 24). In a Report and Recommendation issued this date, the undersigned has considered petitioner's opposition to the motion to dismiss.
To the extent that petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Court's December 13, 2018 Order, his motion (Doc. 24) is denied. In the December 13, 2018 Order, the Court granted respondent's motion to reconsider the Court's November 20, 2018 Order, requiring respondent to provide petitioner with a copy of his mental health records. (Doc. 21). The Court granted the motion for reconsideration because Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction policy does not permit inmates to obtain or retain their medical records. However, as noted in the Report and Recommendation, petitioner was permitted to review his medical records in accordance with ODRC policy. Petitioner was granted an extension of time to file a response to the motion to dismiss, has filed a response in opposition (Doc. 23), and the Court conducted its own thorough review of petitioner's medical records. Accordingly, petitioner's motion (Doc. 24) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
