From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hess v. Eberlin

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Apr 20, 2006
Case No. 2:04-cv-1144 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 20, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 2:04-cv-1144.

April 20, 2006


OPINION AND ORDER


On March 20, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that claims one through four, and claim six be dismissed, and that respondent be directed to provide a copy of the state trial transcript in relation to claim five. Petitioner has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Petitioner objects solely to the Magistrate Judge's recommendations on claims two, three, and six. Petitioner again raises all of the same arguments that were previously presented.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation objected to by petitioner. For the reasons discussed at length in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, petitioner's objections are OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Claims one through four, and claim six are DISMISSED.

Respondent is DIRECTED to provide a copy of the state trial transcript within twenty (20) days of the date of this order so that the Court may determine whether petitioner can establish cause and prejudice for his procedural default of claim five.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hess v. Eberlin

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Apr 20, 2006
Case No. 2:04-cv-1144 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 20, 2006)
Case details for

Hess v. Eberlin

Case Details

Full title:DAVID A. HESS, Petitioner, v. MICHELLE EBERLIN, Warden, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Apr 20, 2006

Citations

Case No. 2:04-cv-1144 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 20, 2006)

Citing Cases

Johnson v. Warden, Ross Corr. Inst.

The failure to have included this claim as an assignment of error on direct appeal is a procedural default.…