Martin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

Full title: ROBERT MARTIN, Petitioner, v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY, Respondent.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Jan 13, 2015

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-0235 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 13, 2015)

Opinion

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-0235

01-13-2015

ROBERT MARTIN, Petitioner, v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY, Respondent.

JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ABEL
OPINION AND ORDER

On November 12, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, ECF 10, be granted. Petitioner has filed an Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. ECF 18.

Petitioner argues that the Magistrate Judge was without jurisdiction to issue a Report and Recommendation in this case. This argument fails. Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the authority of the Magistrate Judge extends to the issuance of recommendations to the district judge. Farmer v. Litscher, 303 F.3d 804 (7^th Cir. Sept. 18, 2002). This does not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of judicial power. Id. at 843. "The Supreme Court has interpreted 636(b)(1)(B) 'to authorize the nonconsensual reference of all prisoner petitions to a magistrate judge.'" Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325, 327 (5^th Cir. 2007)(citing McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136 (1991). See also Hecker v. California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, No. CIV S-05-2441 (2007 WL 836806, at *1 n.1 (E.D. California March 15, 2007)(citing McCarthy); Harris v. Knauf, No. 89-6212, 905 F.2d 1538, unpublished, 1990 84223, at *1 (6 Cir. June 21, 1990)(Prisoner petition regarding conditions of confinement properly referred to Magistrate Judge)(citing Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 46 (4 Cir. 1982)(internal citation omitted). Petitioner's Objection on this basis is OVERRULED.

th

th

Petitioner additionally raises all of the same arguments he previously presented. For the reasons already set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court likewise is not persuaded by Petitioner's arguments.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court has conducted a de novo review. Petitioner's Objection, ECF 18, is OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, ECF 10, is GRANTED and this action is hereby DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ George C. Smith

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT