From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hancock v. Brunsman

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Dayton
Feb 14, 2006
Case No. 3:05-cv-310 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 3:05-cv-310.

February 14, 2006


ORDER ADOPTING SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS


The Court has reviewed the Supplemental Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz (Doc. #8), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such objections under Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) expired on January 30, 2006, hereby ADOPTS said Supplemental Report and Recommendations.

It is therefore ORDERED that

1. The Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 5) is denied;

2. Petitioner is ordered to file a motion for delayed appeal in the Ohio Supreme Court not later than March 15, 2006; and

3. All further proceedings herein are stayed pending a decision by the Ohio Supreme Court on Petitioner's motion for delayed appeal. Petitioner is ordered to provide this Court with a copy of his filings with the Ohio Supreme Court and keep this Court currently advised of the status of the matter before the Ohio Supreme Court.


Summaries of

Hancock v. Brunsman

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Dayton
Feb 14, 2006
Case No. 3:05-cv-310 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2006)
Case details for

Hancock v. Brunsman

Case Details

Full title:JAMES E. HANCOCK, Petitioner, v. TIMOTHY BRUNSMAN, Warden, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Dayton

Date published: Feb 14, 2006

Citations

Case No. 3:05-cv-310 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2006)