IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ADAM D. TAYLOR, 

 Case No. 2:18-cv-447 

 Petitioner, Judge George C. Smith 

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 v. 

WARDEN, NOBLE 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 

 Respondent. 

ORDER and 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 On May 8, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation under Rule 

4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts advising the 

Petitioner that this action was subject to dismissal under Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases, which provides that the Petitioner must specify the nature of his grounds for 

relief and state the facts in support of each ground because Petitioner’s pleadings were 

unintelligible, and the Court was unable to decipher the nature of his claims. (ECF No. 2.) The 

Magistrate Judge therefore recommended that this action be dismissed, unless Petitioner 

resubmitted a habeas petition clearly stating the basis for each of his claims for relief, as well as 

the factual grounds in support. (Id.) 

 On May 29, 2018, Petitioner resubmitted a Petition, and Amended Petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus. (ECF Nos. 5, 6.) Thus, the original Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 2) is 

hereby WITHDRAWN. 

Unfortunately, Petitioner’s amended pleadings remain unintelligible. Despite the Court’s 

best efforts, it is unable to determine the nature of Petitioner’s claims. As previously discussed, 
2 

under these circumstances, dismissal is appropriate. See Rice v. Warden, No. 1:14-cv-732, 2015 

WL 5299421, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 9, 2015) (dismissal under Rule 2(c) appropriate where 

pleadings contain unintelligible and conclusory allegations and statements) (citations omitted); 

Accord v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst., No. 2:12-cv-355, 2013 WL 228027, at *3 (S.D. Ohio 

Jan. 22, 2013) (while the court liberally construes a pro se prisoner's pleadings, it is not required 

to “conjure allegations” on the petitioner's behalf) (citations omitted)). “Habeas Rule 2(c) is 

‘more demanding’ than Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), which requires in ‘ordinary civil proceedings’ that 

the complaint ‘provide ‘fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it 

rests.’” McClure v. Warden, London Corr. Inst., No. 1:16-cv-729, 2018 WL 1452253, at *4 

(S.D. Ohio March 1, 2018) (citing Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655-56 (2005); McFarland v. 

Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 860 (1994)). “‘Notice’ pleading is insufficient in the habeas context, as the 

petitioner is expected to state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error.” Id. 

(citing Johnson v. Sheldon, No. 3:14-cv-1675, 2015 WL 3650695, at *2 (N.D. Ohio June 11, 

2015) (other citations omitted)). 

Recommended Disposition 

Therefore, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED. 

Procedure on Objections 

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen 

days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those specific 

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting 

authority for the objection(s). A judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those 

portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is 

made. Upon proper objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or 
3 

in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence or may 

recommit this matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1). 

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and 

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the district judge review the Report 

and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of 

the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 

The parties are further advised that, if they intend to file an appeal of any adverse 

decision, they may submit arguments in any objections filed, regarding whether a certificate of 

appealability should issue. 

Finally, the Undersigned’s previous Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 2) is hereby 

WITHDRAWN. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 _s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers

 Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 United States Magistrate Judge