Rankin v. Dick

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Bryan Rankin,
Petitioner,
v.
Kenneth W. Dick,
Respondent.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:25-cv-612
Judge Susan J. Dlott
Order Adopting Report and
Recommendation and Denying Motion
for Injunctive Relief
Bryan Rankin filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(“Habeas Petition”) alleging that his conviction in Ohio for interference with custody was
obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. (Doc. 1.) He also filed a Motion for Injunctive
Relief asking this Court to order the Ohio court to give him credit for time he spent in a
Kentucky jail on a bench warrant awaiting extradition. (Doc. 9.) Magistrate Judge Elizabeth
Preston Deavers issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court deny
Rankin’s Motion. (Doc. 20.) While the Report and Recommendation was pending, Rankin filed
a Motion for Expedited Ruling on Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 25.) For the reasons below, the
Court will ADOPT the Report and Recommendation, and DENY the Motion for Injunctive
Relief, and DENY AS MOOT the Motion for Expedited Ruling.
I. 	STANDARD OF LAW
Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) & (C) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(1)
authorize magistrate judges to make recommendations concerning dispositive motions that have
been referred to them. Parties then have fourteen days to make, file, and serve specific written
objections to the report and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
Case: 1:25-cv-00612-SJD-MRM Doc #: 26 Filed: 12/18/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
If a party files objections to a report and recommendation on a dispositive matter, a district judge
must review it under the de novo standard. Baker v. Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir.
2003). A district judge is not required to independently review a report and recommendation to
which no objection is made. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985). But some district
courts follow the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 72(b) and review the report and
recommendation for clear error. See e.g., Roane v. Warden of Corr. Reception Ctr., No. 2:22-
CV-2768, 2022 WL 16535903, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 28, 2022); Lassiter v. Dullaghan, No. 1:10-
CV-010, 2011 WL 110259, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 13, 2011). “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); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(substantively similar).
II. 	ANALYSIS
Rankin moves this Court to order the Ohio sentencing court to give him jail time credit
for the time he was held in a Kentucky jail on a bench warrant. (Doc. 19 at PageID 911.) He
also asks the Court to allow him to expand the record to include a transcript from an Ohio court
proceeding held on September 24, 2025. (Id. at PageID 912.)
The Magistrate Judge construed the Motion for Injunctive Relief as a request for bail
pending disposition of the Habeas Petition. (Doc. 20 at PageID 917.) She recommended that the
Court deny the Motion, and Rankin did not file objections. (Id. at PageID 918.) The Court finds
no clear error in the Report and Recommendation, and in fact, the Court would rule the same
under a de novo review. A prisoner seeking bail pending review of his habeas petition must,
among other requirements, convince the district court that “exceptional circumstances and the
interests of justice warrant relief.” Pouncy v. Palmer, 993 F.3d 461, 463 (6th Cir. 2021) (internal
Case: 1:25-cv-00612-SJD-MRM Doc #: 26 Filed: 12/18/25 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
quotation and citation omitted). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Rankin has not
met that high standard. The Court will not grant him bail pending review of the Habeas Petition.
As for Rankin’s request for jail time credit, the Sixth Circuit has held that a petitioner has
no constitutional right to receive jail time credit in one state court for time spent in another
state’s jail awaiting extradition. Pernell v. Rose, 486 F.2d 301, 301 (6th Cir. 1973). The Court
will deny Rankin’s request to order the Ohio court to give him jail time credit. Likewise, the
Court will deny Rankin’s request to expand the record to include a September 24, 2025 Ohio
court hearing transcript about the jail time credit issue.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons state above, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) is ADOPTED,
the Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 19) is DENIED, and the Motion for Expedited Ruling
(Doc. 25) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
S/Susan J. Dlott
Susan J. Dlott
United States District Judge
Case: 1:25-cv-00612-SJD-MRM Doc #: 26 Filed: 12/18/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>