From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brand v. Warden, Pickaway Corr. Inst.

United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio
Jan 6, 2022
1:21-cv-222 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 6, 2022)

Opinion

1:21-cv-222

01-06-2022

BARON BRAND, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, PICKAWAY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent.


ENTRY AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. 5)

Matthew W. McFarland, Judge.

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz (Doc. 5), to whom this case is 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) has expired, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court TRANSFERS Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for review and determination of whether the district court may consider the successive claims for relief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Brand v. Warden, Pickaway Corr. Inst.

United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio
Jan 6, 2022
1:21-cv-222 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 6, 2022)
Case details for

Brand v. Warden, Pickaway Corr. Inst.

Case Details

Full title:BARON BRAND, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, PICKAWAY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION…

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio

Date published: Jan 6, 2022

Citations

1:21-cv-222 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 6, 2022)

Citing Cases

Brand v. Warden, Pickaway Corr. Inst.

1 No. 1:21-CV-222, 2021 WL 2209708, at *1 (S.D. Ohio June 1, 2021), report and recommendation adopted sub…

Brand v. Warden, Pickaway Corr. Inst.

The petition was transferred to the Sixth Circuit as a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. §…