¶1 James R. Mills, an Ohio prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, this court determines that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a panel opinion and affirms the district court’s decision for the reasons stated in parts I and II, and the last paragraph of part III, of Magistrate Judge Black’s Report and Recommendation (R & R). See Mills v. Jackson, No. C-1-02-CV-664, 2005 WL 1378759, at *4-*12, *15-*16 (S.D.Ohio June 8, 2005). It is unnecessary, however, to address the R & R’s finding that the government’s withholding of the stained seat cover was not material because, even assuming the seat cover was material, Mills suffered no prejudice as he learned of the existence of the seat cover during his trial and did not seek a continuance. See Mills, 2005 WL 1378759, at *15. The district court properly denied Mills’s habeas petition. Its judgment is therefore affirmed.
192 F. App'x 493
Mills v. Jackson
U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided August 21, 2006
This page is marked noindex.
U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2006-08-21
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently July 2009
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2006-08-21
View the full empirical analysis of this case →