Hutchison v. Warden, Correctional Reception CenterHutchison v. Warden, Correctional Reception Center
Randall Hutchison (“Petitioner“) petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. ECF Nos. 1, 8, 17, 29. Petitioner, however, failed to notify the Court of multiple address changes and apparently began refusing to accept mail from this Court, both of which resulted in many Court mailings being returned. ECF Nos. 10, 19, 20, 27, 35, 37, 39, 44, 64-65, 70, 73, 78-80, 83, 90, 93, 95, 97, 99, 101. Petitioner continued, however, to file frivolous motions and notices. ECF Nos. 7, 9, 18, 21-22, 25-26, 31-33, 45-47, 51-59, 85-87, 89, 91, 94, 96, 98, 102-108, 110.
Meanwhile, Respondent moved to dismiss the Petition (which challenges a 2016 conviction) as time-barred. ECF No. 50. The Magistrate Judge issued a thorough Report and Recommendation (“R&R“) recommending the Court grant that motion. ECF No. 109. Petitioner timely objected. ECF No. 111.
Here, the Court declines to perform a de novo review of any portion of the R&R because Petitioner did not properly object to any portion of it. Instead, the objection claims, inter alia, that Petitioner: released “the Jeffrey Epstein files as a NATO state sponsored hacker[,]” “all FBI field offices are material witness[e]s[,]” this Court caused multiple data breaches, all of the judges of this Court are under Congressional investigation, and Petitioner became a NATO asset in 2014 in order “to gain citizenship to all NATO nations.” ECF No. 111.
Those objections are not the type of “proper” objections that trigger de novo review under Rule 72(b). E.g., Stamtec, Inc. v. Anson, 296 F. App‘x 518, 520 (6th Cir. 2008); Deters v. Porotsky, No. 1:25-cv-386, 2026 WL 524715, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 12, 2026). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R without conducting a de novo review, DISMISSES the Petition as time-barred, DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability, and CERTIFIES pursuant to
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT