Opinion
Case No. 3:11-cv-150
01-18-2013
WILLIAM R. DIXON, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Respondent.
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO
THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. 20)
This matter is before the Court upon a filing by Petitioner, through counsel, titled "Objections to Report and Recommendation" (doc. 20). In that filing, counsel makes objections to the undersigned's January 7, 2013 Report and Recommendation (doc. 19). See doc. 20. However, counsel also requests an extension of time for Petitioner to file separate pro se objections. See id. at PageID 2193. The Court accepts this filing (doc. 20) as Petitioner's objections to the Report and Recommendation. Nonetheless, recognizing the time period for filing objections has not yet expired, the Court ADVISES Petitioner that, if he wishes to file pro se supplemental objections and needs more time to do so, he should file a motion for an extension of time. Further, the Court first ADVISES Petitioner that he does not have a right to hybrid representation in these habeas corpus proceedings i.e., Petitioner cannot simultaneously be represented by counsel and make pro se filings. Accord Ahmed v. Houk, No. 2:07-cv-658, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109687, at *5-7 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 16, 2008). Therefore, before Petitioner files any pro se supplemental objections to the Report and Recommendation, counsel must first withdraw from his representation of Petitioner in compliance with S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 83.4(c). If Petitioner does not take such action, the Court will proceed on the objections filed by Petitioner's counsel.
Counsel is ORDERED to send a copy of this Order to Petitioner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge