United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, JUDGE
ORDER AND OPINION
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Tyler Payne's
Objections to certain evidentiary and pretrial orders made by
Magistrate Judge Thomas Parker. (Doc. 27). For the foregoing
reasons, the Court Grants, in part,
following are the relevant facts to Petitioner's current
objections. On February 7, 2018, Petitioner filed a Petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc.
1). Petitioner asserted five grounds for relief. Pursuant to
Local Rule 72.2, the Court referred the matter to Magistrate
Judge Parker for pretrial monitoring and a Report and
Recommendation. (Doc. 5).
parties moved forward with pretrial briefing before the
Magistrate Judge. On November 13, 2018, Petitioner filed his
first Motion to Expand the Record under Rule 7 of the Rule
Governing § 2254 Cases. (Doc. 18). Petitioner sought to
expand the Record with eleven separate items. Petitioner also
asked the Court to appoint counsel for the proceeding. (Doc.
19). Respondent filed his Opposition to Petitioner's
Motion to Expand on January 18, 2019. (Doc. 24).
February 26, 2019, the Magistrate Judge granted, in part,
Petitioner's Motion to Expand the Record. (Doc. 25).
Relevant for the current Order, the Magistrate Judge allowed
an expansion of the Record regarding Items One, Two and Ten.
The Magistrate Judge denied expansion of the Record regarding
Items Three through Nine and Item Eleven. The Magistrate
Judge also denied Petitioner's request for counsel.
March 25, 2019, Petitioner's objection to the Magistrate
Judge's Order was docketed. (Doc. 27). In his Objection,
Petitioner claimed the Magistrate Judge was incorrect in
denying the Motion to Expand the Record pertaining to Items
Three through Nine and Item Eleven. Petitioner also objected
to the Magistrate Judge's denial of his request for
counsel and the timeline established for filing his Traverse.
Petitioner filed his Objection, the case proceeded forward.
Respondent complied with the Magistrate Judge's Order and
supplemented the Record. (Docs. 28, 30). Thereafter, the
Magistrate Judge issued an Order requiring Petitioner to file
a Traverse on or before December 23, 2019. (Non-Doc. Entry,
11/21/2019). Petitioner objected to this Order. (Doc. 32). In
his Objection, Petitioner reiterated his previous objections
and asked this Court to issue a ruling on his Objections
prior to filing a Traverse.
magistrate judge makes a ruling on a non-dispositive matter,
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's
Local Rules allow any party to appeal that decision. Fed. R.
Civ. Pro. 72(a); Loc. R. 72.3(a). In review of such
non-dispositive decisions, the district court can modify or
set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or
contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(a); Loc. R. 72.3(a).
Motion to Expand the Record - Items Three through
Magistrate Judge denied in part Petitioner's Motion to
Expand the Record. The Magistrate Judge determined that Items
Three through Nine sought discovery from third parties,
including documents and depositions that were not presented
before the state court. Moreover, the Magistrate Judge
determined Petitioner was conclusory in his ...