Tiandre L. Turner v. Warden, Belmont Correctional Institution

Opinion

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

TIANDRE L. TURNER,

Petitioner, Case No. 3:25-cv-84

v.

WARDEN, BELMONT District Judge Michael J. Newman CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

Respondent. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER: (1) OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTION (Doc. No. 15); (2) AFFIRMING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER (Doc. No. 14) DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXPAND THE RECORD (Doc. No. 9); AND (3) CONFIRMING THIS CASE REMAINS PENDING ON THE DOCKET ______________________________________________________________________________ Petitioner is an inmate in state custody. Doc. No. 1. He brings this case pro se seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Id. The case is before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Litkovitz’s Order (Doc. No. 14) denying Petitioner’s motion to expand the record (Doc. No. 9) and Petitioner’s objections to that Order1 (Doc. No. 15). The Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered all filings in this matter, including Petitioner’s objections. Having carefully reviewed Petitioner’s objections, and liberally construing his pro se filings in his favor, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), the Court concludes that Judge Litkovitz’s Order is well reasoned, cogently written, and not “clearly erroneous or … contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Vogel v. U.S. Office Products Co., 258 F.3d 509, 515 (6th Cir. 2001) (“The district court can reconsider a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order ‘where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.’”) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)); Brentlinger v. Marquis, No. 3:18-CV-2452, 2020 WL 4016103, at *1 (N.D. Ohio July 16, 2020) (A motion to expand the record in a habeas corpus case “is a non-dispositive pretrial motion”)). Accordingly, the Court (1) OVERRULES Petitioner’s objection; and (2) AFFIRMS Judge Litkovitz’s Order. This case REMAINS PENDING on the docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED. May 21, 2026 s/Michael J. Newman Hon. Michael J. Newman United States District Judge