UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

JAMES E. BROWN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

WARDEN, Chillicothe Correctional 

Institution 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

Case No. 1:17-cv-583 

Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOCS. 47 & 53), 

OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOCS. 51 & 56), AND DENYING MOTION TO 

EXPAND THE RECORD (DOC. 57) 

 

This habeas corpus case, brought pro se by the Petitioner James E. Brown under 28 

U.S.C. § 2254, is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 

(Doc. 47) (the “Report”) and Supplemental Report and Recommendation (Doc. 53) (the 

“Supplemental Report”). The Petitioner filed objections both to the Report (Doc. 51) and to 

the Supplemental Report (Doc. 56). The Petitioner also filed a second Motion for Leave to 

Expand the Record in which he asserts that certain documents related to his state court 

postconviction petition had been misarranged by the state clerk of courts but that they were 

properly included with the Petition (Doc. 57). 

 The Petitioner’s Motion to Expand the Record currently pending before the Court is 

not well taken for reasons already covered by the Magistrate Judge in the very thorough 

Report. As noted, the law in the Sixth Circuit is well settled that “the writ of habeas corpus is 

not the proper means by which prisoners can challenge errors or deficiencies in state postconviction proceedings, . . . which address collateral matters and not the underlying conviction 

Case: 1:17-cv-00583-JPH-KLL Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/02/23 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 662
2 

giving rise to the prisoner’s incarceration.” Dickey v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst., No. 

1:08cv819, 2010 WL 92510, at *10 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 6, 2010) (Beckwith, J.; Black, M.J.) 

(emphasis added) (citing Kirby v. Dutton, 794 F.2d 245, 247 (6th Cir. 1986); Cress v. Palmer, 

484 F.3d 844, 853 (6th Cir. 2007); Roe v. Baker, 316 F.3d 557, 571 (6th Cir. 2002); Alley v. Bell, 

307 F.3d 380, 386-87 (6th Cir. 2002)). The Motion to Expand the Record is accordingly 

DENIED. 

The Court has, likewise, carefully reviewed the comprehensive findings and 

conclusions of the Magistrate Judge and has considered de novo all of the filings in this case 

with particular attention to the issues as to which Petitioner has lodged objections. Having 

done so, the Court determines that the recommendations in the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Supplemental Report should be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED

and the Report (Doc. 47) and Supplemental Report (Doc. 53) are ADOPTED in their 

entirety. The Petition, as amended, is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim 

for relief. Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability, and the Court hereby certifies 

to the United States Court of Appeals that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and 

therefore Petitioner should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 2, 2023 

 Hon. Jeffery P. Hopkins ~ 

United States District Judge 

p~.:, . 

Case: 1:17-cv-00583-JPH-KLL Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/02/23 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 663