Opinion
2:20-cv-5460
07-26-2021
Shaun Tristan Williams, Petitioner, v. Jay Forshey, Warden, Orient Correctional Institution, Respondent.
MICHAEL R. MERZ MAGISTRATE JUDGE
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE
Petitioner objects, ECF No. 19, in this habeas corpus case, to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (“R&R”), ECF No. 18, recommending the Court deny Petitioner's Motion to Amend the Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), ECF No. 17. As a postjudgment motion, the Motion to Amend was considered by the Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), and the Court is required to review de novo every portion of the R&R to which substantial objection has been made. This Opinion and Order embodies the result of that de novo review.
The R&R states the standard of review for a motion to amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), and Petitioner makes no objection to the standard as stated. As the R&R notes, “there must be ‘(1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.'” R&R, ECF No. 18, PAGEID # 384 (citing Betts v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 558 F.3d 461, 474 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol. Sch., 469 F.3d 479, 496 (6th Cir 2006))).
The Magistrate Judge concluded that the Court had not committed a clear error of law when it dismissed the case upon concluding the Ohio Third District Court of Appeals reasonably applied Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and Anders v California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), when it dismissed Petitioner's direct appeal without appointing substitute counsel after an Anders brief was filed. R&R, ECF No. 18, PAGEID ## 385-87. The R&R also rejected Petitioner's Double Jeopardy claim because it should have been made before judgment. Id. at PAGEID # 387. Finally, it rejected Petitioner's reargued loss of trial court jurisdiction claim because it had first been made in objections to the Magistrate Judge's prior R&R on the merits. Id., PAGEID ## 387-88.
Petitioner's Objections take issue summarily with the original R&R's conclusion that the Third District satisfied its obligation under Penson. Obj., ECF No.19, PAGEID ## 388-89. The Objections' argument is completely conclusory, citing no authority. Under those circumstances, Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Magistrate Judge's R&R is contrary to law, and it is hereby ADOPTED. Case No. 2:20-cv-5460
Petitioner's Motion to Amend the Judgment is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.