Shoecraft v. Shoop, 3:19-cv-261. (2020)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20200211g02
Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 10, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 10, 2020
Summary: RECOMMITTAL ORDER THOMAS M. ROSE , District Judge . This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner's Objections (ECF No. 16) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (ECF No. 15). 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
Summary: RECOMMITTAL ORDER THOMAS M. ROSE , District Judge . This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner's Objections (ECF No. 16) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (ECF No. 15). 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 ..
More
RECOMMITTAL ORDER
THOMAS M. ROSE, District Judge.
This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner's Objections (ECF No. 16) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (ECF No. 15).
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 making recommendations based on that analysis.
Source: Leagle
