IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION 

RICHARD A. CHATMAN,

Petitioner, Case No. 2:10-cv-1091

 District Judge George C. Smith

-vs- Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

WARDEN, ROSS CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION,

Respondent.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTION FOR NEW 

TRIAL

This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion to Amend the 

Judgment (Doc. No. 14). Essentially Petitioner wants the Court to vacate its Judgment of April 

17, 2013, which adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations recommending 

that the Petition be dismissed with prejudice (Doc. Nos. 11, 12).

Because the Motion was filed post-judgment, it was deemed referred to Magistrate Judge 

Merz for report and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 646(b)(3). The Magistrate Judge filed a 

Report and Recommendations recommending the Motion for New Trial be denied (Doc. No. 15) 

and Petitioner has filed Objections to that Report (Doc. No. 16).

Review of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations on a post-judgment 

motion is de novo.

The Report recommends not reopening the judgment because Petitioner did not file any 

Case: 2:10-cv-01091-GCS-MRM Doc #: 17 Filed: 10/16/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

objections to Magistrate Judge Merz’s Report on the merits within the time allowed by law.1

 

The Report also noted, importantly, that the case had been pending for two years without 

Petitioner’s filing anything of substance on the merits. 

In his instant Objections, Petitioner again recites the lack of law library resources at his 

institution of confinement (Objections, Doc. No. 16, PageID 701-02). Even accepting those 

limitations, Petitioner has not explained why it would take him the full seventeen-day objection 

period to draft a two-sentence request for extension of time. Responding to Magistrate Judge 

Merz’s point that he had filed nothing of substance in response to the Return of Writ, he notes 

that the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases do not require him to do so and none of the legal 

resources give a form for such a reply. Even now he does not tender any substantive argument, 

but asks that the judgment be reopened so that he can do so at some unspecified future time. (Id.

at PageID 703).

Having reviewed again the substance of Magistrate Judge Merz’s Report and 

Recommendations on the merits (Doc. No. 9), the Court concludes that they are a correct 

analysis of the law. Petitioner has not shown that the decisions on any of these points by the 

Ohio courts was contrary to or an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established 

United States Supreme Court precedent.

Accordingly, upon de novo review, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Merz’s Report 

and Recommendations on the Petitioner’s Motion for New Trial and that Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 1 Although Petitioner sought and Magistrate Judge Merz granted an extension of time to file objections, 

that extension was effectively negated by the Court’s entry of judgment. In light that the entry of 

judgment, Magistrate Judge Merz vacated the extension of time. 

Case: 2:10-cv-01091-GCS-MRM Doc #: 17 Filed: 10/16/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>