1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

ALEX NORRIS,

Petitioner, : Case No. 3:18-cv-105

- vs - District Judge Walter Herbert Rice

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

JEFF NOBLE, Warden,

 adison Correctional Institution

:

Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No. 8) to the 

Magistrate Judge’s notation order (ECF No. 7) striking Norris’s Motion for Extension of Time to 

File Objections (ECF No. 6). Judge Rice has recommitted the matter for reconsideration in light 

of the Objections (ECF No. 9).

The Magistrate Judge filed a Report recommending dismissal of the Petition on April 5, 

2018 (ECF No. 4). The Report advised the Petitioner that any objections were required to be filed 

not later than seventeen days later. Id. at PageID 43. When no objections were filed within that

time period, Judge Rice adopted the Report and dismissed the case on April 30, 2018, actually

twenty-five days after the Report was filed and served (ECF No. 5). 

Norris’s request for an extension of time was received by the Clerk and docketed the same 

days as the Court’s judgment. The request for more time is dated April 26, 2018, and postmarked

the same day (See PageID 46). The request was denied as moot because Judge Rice had already 

entered judgment. However, in denying the request, the Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner that, 

Case: 3:18-cv-00105-WHR-MRM Doc #: 10 Filed: 05/15/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 52
2

if he believed legal error had been committed, he could file a motion to amend the judgment not 

later than May 5, 2018 (ECF No. 7).

Norris’s Objection claims he wanted to file a rebuttal within thirty days under “Rule 

2945.72.” No such rule exists. If Norris is referring to Ohio Revised Code § 2945.72, that is a 

statute pertaining only to extensions of time for hearing or trial under the Ohio Speedy Trial Act. 

Norris also claims he is enclosing a letter extending his time to May 30, 2018, but what he encloses 

is the Notice of Electronic Filing of his motion to extend the time. (ECF No. 8-1).

Therefore Norris’s Objections should be overruled.

May 15, 2018.

 s/ Michael R. Merz

 United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the 

proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this Report 

and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to seventeen days 

because this Report is being served by mail. .Such objections shall specify the portions of the 

Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. 

If the Report and Recommendations are based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record 

at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or 

such portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless 

the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party=s objections 

within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in 

accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 

947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985).

Case: 3:18-cv-00105-WHR-MRM Doc #: 10 Filed: 05/15/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 53