IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

ALEX NORRIS,
Petitioner,
v. . Case No. 3:18-cv-105
JEFF NOBLE, Warden, Madison JUDGE WALTER H. RICE

Correctional Institution,

Respondent.

DECISION AND ENTRY REJECTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. #10);
SUSTAINING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS (DOC. #8) TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S NOTATION ORDER (DOC. #7) STRIKING
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
OBJECTIONS (DOC. #6); VACATING ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
WITH PREJUDICE (DOC. #5); OBJECTIONS TO APRIL 5, 2018,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. #4) TO BE FILED
WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION AND ENTRY;
CASE RE-OPENED

On April 4, 2018, Petitioner, Alex Norris, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus, Doc. #3. The following day, United States Magistrate Judge Michael R.
Merz issued a Report and Recommendations, Doc. #4, recommending that the
Petition be dismissed with prejudice, on the merits. On April 30, 2018, the
undersigned issued an Order Adopting Report and Recommendations, Doc. #5,

noting that no Objections had been filed within the time allotted.’ Just hours later,

' Although the case was dismissed, no Judgment has yet been entered.


on that same date, Petitioner filed a motion, dated April 26, 2018, for an extension
of time to file Objections to the Report and Recommendations, Doc. #6. By
Notation Order, Magistrate Judge Merz denied that motion as moot, given that the
Court had already dismissed the case; however, he gave Petitioner until May 5,
2018, to file a motion to amend the judgment.

Petitioner then filed an Objection to that Notation Order, Doc. #8, asking for
additional time. The undersigned recommitted the matter to Magistrate Judge
Merz, Doc. #9, who issued another Report and Recommendations, Doc. #10, on
May 15, 2018, recommending that Petitioner’s Objection be overruled because the
Ohio Revised Code section cited by Petitioner in support of his request for
additional time was inapplicable. Petitioner has not filed any Objections to the May
15, 2018, Report and Recommendations.

Nevertheless, the Court, in its discretion, REJECTS the Report and
Recommendations, Doc. #10, and SUSTAINS Petitioner’s Objection, Doc. #8, to
the April 30, 2018, Notation Order denying Petitioner’s motion for an extension of
time to file Objections to the April 5, 2018, Report and Recommendations, Doc.
#6. The Court notes that Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time was mailed
on April 26, 2018, and was docketed on April 30, 2018, just hours after the
Petition was dismissed.

Objections to the Report and Recommendations were due by April 22, 2018.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time was technically a few

days late. Nevertheless, it is deemed to have been filed on April 26, 2018, four


days before the Court dismissed the case.” Under these circumstances, the Court
finds it preferable to give Petitioner the opportunity to respond, on the merits, to
the April 5, 2018, Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, the Court
VACATES the Order Adopting Report and Recommendations, Doc. #5. Petitioner
shall have 30 days from the date of this Decision and Entry to file any substantive
Objections to the April 5, 2018, Report and Recommendations.

The captioned cause is to be re-opened on the Court's docket.

Date: June 15, 2018 LR >

WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 Under the “mailbox rule,” Petitioner’s motion is considered to be filed on the
date that it was given to prison officials for filing in the federal court. Houston v.
Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 273 (1988). However, it was not docketed by the Clerk of
Court until four days later.