Jenkins v. Chambers-Smith

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
LEONARD JENKINS, 	CASE NO. 1:25 CV 254
Petitioner,
v. 	JUDGE JAMES R. KNEPP II
MALCOLM HEARD, 1
Respondent. 	MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER
Petitioner Leonard Jenkins (“Petitioner), a prisoner in state custody, filed a Petition seeking
a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 5). This case was referred to Magistrate
Judge Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) regarding the
Petition under Local Civil Rule 72.2(b)(2). On November 25, 2025, Judge Armstrong issued an
R&R recommending the Court transfer Petitioner’s Petition to the Sixth Circuit. (Doc. 13).
Petitioner filed objections to the R&R. (Doc. 14).
The Court has jurisdiction over the Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). For the reasons set
forth below, the Court overrules Petitioner’s objections, adopts the R&R, grants Respondent’s
Motion to Transfer, and transfers Petitioner’s habeas Petition to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
1. Petitioner is now incarcerated at Franklin Medical Center; Warden Malcolm Heard is the
Warden of that institution and thus the proper Respondent in this case. The Court therefore
substitutes Warden Heard as Respondent. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004).
Case: 1:25-cv-00254-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/06/26 1 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

2
BACKGROUND
This habeas case, filed on January 31, 2025, stems from Petitioner’s 1982 convictions for
aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, attempted murder, kidnapping, and possession of criminal
tools. (Doc. 10-1, at 289-90). On December 9, 1985, Petitioner filed a § 2254 habeas petition in
this Court. Jenkins v. Morris, 1:85 CV 3707 (N.D. Ohio).
In her R&R, Judge Armstrong recommends the Court find Petitioner’s present Petition is
a “second or successive” petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). (Doc. 13, at 7-11). She therefore
recommends the Court grant Respondent’s Motion to Transfer and transfer the Petition to the Sixth
Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1631 and 2244(b)(3)(A). Id. at 11.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When 	a 	party 	objects 	to 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	R&R, 	the 	district 	judge 	“must
determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected
to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further
evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
This Court adopts all uncontested findings and conclusions from the R&R and reviews de
novo those portions of the R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Hill
v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1213-14 (6th Cir. 1981). To trigger de novo review, objections
must be specific, not “vague, general, or conclusory.” Cole v. Yukins, 7 F. App’x 354, 356 (6th
Cir. 2001). This specific-objection requirement is meant to direct this Court to “specific issues for
review.” Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). General
objections, by contrast, ask this Court to review the entire matter de novo, “making the initial
reference to the magistrate useless.” Id.
Case: 1:25-cv-00254-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/06/26 2 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

3
“A general objection, or one that merely restates the arguments previously presented and
addressed by the Magistrate Judge, does not sufficiently identify alleged errors in the [R&R]” to
trigger de novo review. Fondren v. Am. Home Shield Corp., 2018 WL 3414322, at *2 (W.D.
Tenn.); see also Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F. Supp. 2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (“An
‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s suggested
resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an ‘objection’ as that term
is used in this context.”). General objections trigger only clear-error review. Equal Emp.
Opportunity Comm’n v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 277 F. Supp. 3d 932, 965 (E.D. Tenn. 2017), aff’d, 899
F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2018).
DISCUSSION
Petitioner filed Objections to the R&R. (Doc. 14). Therein, Petitioner argues he is
imprisoned on a “void judgment” and that he is “entitle[d] to release.” Id. at 2. He asks the Court
to “issue an order compelling” his attendance at a resentencing hearing. Id.
Petitioner’s objections do not speak to the R&R’s recommendation that this Court find the
Petition is “second or successive” under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) or that transfer to the Sixth
Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1631 is proper. Petitioner has thus not filed a proper objection to
the R&R. Moreover, upon review, the Court finds no error in the R&R’s conclusions.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, good cause appearing, it is
ORDERED that Judge Armstrong’s R&R (Doc. 13) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED
as the Order of this Court; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Transfer (Doc. 10) be and the same
hereby is GRANTED as set forth in the R&R; and it is
Case: 1:25-cv-00254-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/06/26 3 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

4
FURTHER 	ORDERED 	that 	the 	Petition 	(Doc. 	5), 	be, 	and 	the 	same 	hereby 	is,
TRANSFERRED to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631; and it is
FURTHER CERTIFIED that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
s/ James R. Knepp II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 6, 2026
Case: 1:25-cv-00254-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/06/26 4 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>