From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Ohio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Nov 27, 2019
Case No. 4:18 CV 512 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 27, 2019)

Opinion

Case No. 4:18 CV 512

11-27-2019

Sammie Smith, Petitioner, v. State of Ohio, et al., Respondents.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner filed for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). Magistrate Judge Baughman issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 20), which considered the Return of Writ, Traverse, and Supplement to Traverse, as well as Petitioner's letter and his multiple requests for an evidentiary hearing (Docs. 3, 10-12, 14, 16, 18).

Following the R&R, Petitioner timely objected (Doc. 21), stating that he "respectfully extends his thanks to the Magistrate Judge for explaining in simple terms the reason the Federal District Court's inability to hold an evidentiary hearing and rule on this Petitioner's four grounds presented" (Doc. 21 at 1). The three-page Objection does not challenge the R&R's rulings on the four grounds, but rather focuses on the ineffective assistance claims which the Magistrate Judge "indicated . . . were not supported with competent credible evidence" (id. at 3). Petitioner argues there was credible evidence under Ohio Revised Code Section 149.43, and that "both the trial and appellate court are guilty of collusion" (id. at 1, 3).

Having reviewed the record and the R&R, this Court finds Petitioner's Objection not well taken. Petitioner cannot overcome the procedural default of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. See Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 451 (2000). He is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue. See Bowling v. Parker, 344 F.3d 487, 511 (6th Cir. 2003).

The R&R accurately and correctly rejected Petitioner's four grounds (see Doc. 20 at 22-28); this Court adopts it in its entirety. The Objection (Doc. 21) is overruled, and the Petition (Doc. 1) is denied in part and dismissed in part. This Court certifies there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c). Further, an appeal from this Order could not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jack Zouhary

JACK ZOUHARY

U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

November 27, 2019


Summaries of

Smith v. Ohio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Nov 27, 2019
Case No. 4:18 CV 512 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 27, 2019)
Case details for

Smith v. Ohio

Case Details

Full title:Sammie Smith, Petitioner, v. State of Ohio, et al., Respondents.

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

Date published: Nov 27, 2019

Citations

Case No. 4:18 CV 512 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 27, 2019)