Cameron v. Stuff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI
YOHNUS ADAM MICHAEL
CAMERON,
Petitioner,
V.
WARDEN ANGELA STUFF,
Respondent.
Case No. 1:25-cv-196
Judge Matthew W. McFarland
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 18)
This 	matter 	is 	before 	the 	Court 	on 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge's 	Report 	and
Recommendation (Doc. 18), as well as Petitioner's Objections (Doc. 21). Petitioner claims
that Respondent has failed to timely file a Writ of Return and moves this Court to Proceed
to Judgment. (See Motion, Doc. 14.) After thoroughly reviewing Petitioner's Objections
(Doc. 21), the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion: Respondent timely
filed a Return of Writ (Doc. 12) on August 11, 2025. The docket confirms this timeline.
Petitioner highlights the Magistrate Judge's reference to August 11, 2026, rather
than August 11, 2025, as the date of Respondent's filing. (See Objections, Doc. 21, Pg. ID
608; Report, Doc. 18, Pg. ID 584.) The Court notes this discrepancy and clarifies that the
docket reflects Respondent filing her Return of Writ on August 11, 2025. However,
Petitioner's Objections do not convince the Court that Respondent's Return of Writ was
untimely, so they are otherwise overruled. To the extent that Petitioner objects to the
Case: 1:25-cv-00196-MWM-SKB Doc #: 24 Filed: 03/23/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Report and Recommendation on the basis of judicial bias, this conclusory argument is not
well taken. (Objections, Doc. 21, Pg. ID 604, 606-07.) See Coley v. Bagley, 706 F.3d 741, 750-
51 (6th Cir. 2013); United States v. Scherer, 532 F. Supp. 3d 479, 484-85 (S.D. Ohio 2021).
Moreover, the Magistrate Judge recommends denying Petitioner's Motion to Proceed to
Judgment (Doc. 14) and notes that several other matters "will be addressed at a later date"
in due course. (Report, Doc. 18, Pg. ID 584.) Accordingly, Petitioner is not entitled to
judgment at this time.
Upon review, the Court hereby OVERRULES Petitioner's Objections (Doc. 21),
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18), and DENIES Petitioner's Motion
to Proceed to Judgment (Doc. 14).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
By: ~ 	r-i,t,~~ ~
JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND
2
Case: 1:25-cv-00196-MWM-SKB Doc #: 24 Filed: 03/23/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>