From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Landrum v. Anderson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
Jul 23, 2013
Case No. 1:96-cv-641 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 23, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 1:96-cv-641

07-23-2013

LAWRENCE LANDRUM, Petitioner, v. CARL S. ANDERSON, Warden, Respondent.


Judge Thomas M. Rose

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING THE WARDEN'S OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. #269): OVERRULING THE WARDEN'S OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. #274); ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. #268) AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. #273) IN THEIR ENTIRETY; AND DENYING THE WARDEN'S MOTION TO CERTIFY (Doc. #255)

On March 30, 2013, Magistrate Judge Merz issued a Report and Recommendations (doc. #268) recommending that the Warden's Motion To Certify (doc. #255) be denied. The Warden objected (doc. #269) and Petitioner Lawrence Landrum ("Landrum") responded to the Warden's Objections (doc. #271). This Court then recommitted this matter to Magistrate Judge Merz (doc. #272).

Magistrate Judge Merz next issued a Supplemental Report and Recommendations (doc. #273) with the same finding to which the Warden again objected (doc. #274). The time has run and Landrum has not responded to this Objection. The Warden's Objections to both the Report and Recommendations and the Supplemental Report and Recommendations are, therefore, ripe for decision.

As required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 72(b), the District Judge has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court finds that the Warden's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (doc. #269) and the Warden's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Supplemental Report and Recommendations (doc. #274) are not well-taken, and they are hereby OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations and Supplemental Report and Recommendations are adopted in their entirety. The Warden's Motion To Certify (doc. #255) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio this Twenty-Third Day of July, 2013.

________________

THOMAS M. ROSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record


Summaries of

Landrum v. Anderson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
Jul 23, 2013
Case No. 1:96-cv-641 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 23, 2013)
Case details for

Landrum v. Anderson

Case Details

Full title:LAWRENCE LANDRUM, Petitioner, v. CARL S. ANDERSON, Warden, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

Date published: Jul 23, 2013

Citations

Case No. 1:96-cv-641 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 23, 2013)