Cameron v. Stuff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
YOHNUS ADAM MICHAEL
CAMERON,
Petitioner,
vs.
ANGELA STUFF, WARDEN,
RICHMOND CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION,
Respondent.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:25-cv-196
Judge Matthew W. McFarland
Chief Magistrate Judge Stephanie K.
Bowman
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, an inmate in state custody at the Richmond Correctional Institution, has filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). This matter is before
the undersigned Magistrate Judge for consideration of Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed to
Judgment. (Doc. 14). For the reasons set forth below, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s
motion be DENIED.
In this case, Petitioner challenges a criminal judgment issued by the Butler County Court
of Common Pleas against him in 2014 upon his guilty pleas to two first degree felony counts of
rape, Case No. CR2013-09-1520. (Doc. 1, at 1-2). After issuing an order directing Petitioner to
show cause why this Petition should not be dismissed without prejudice for the failure to exhaust
state remedies (Doc. 6), the Undersigned ultimately ordered Respondent to respond to the
Petition within 60 days (Doc. 8). Respondent complied with a Return of Writ filed on August 11,
Case: 1:25-cv-00196-MWM-SKB Doc #: 18 Filed: 02/05/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
2025. (Doc. 12). Petitioner has filed several pleadings, some responsive and others not, that are
not before the Court at this time and will be addressed at a later date. (Doc. Nos. 10, 13, and 15).
At issue is Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed to Judgment (Doc. 14), wherein Petitioner
appears to move the Court to enter judgment against Respondent, due to Respondent’s failure to
timely comply with the Doc. 8 Order for Answer. (Doc. 14, at 496). Respondent counters that
Petitioner is mistaken. (Doc. 16, at 524). Respondent is correct.
The Undersigned gave Respondent 60 days from its June 12, 2025, Order to file an
answer to the Petition and relevant portions of the state court record. (Doc. 8, at 34). Respondent
filed state-court record exhibits on August 8, 2025 (Doc. 11), and the Return of Writ (Answer)
on August 11, 2025 (Doc. 12). Sixty days from June 12, 2025, is, as Respondent points out,
August 11, 2026. And that is the date the Return of Writ was filed. It was not untimely.
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed to Judgment
(Doc. 14) is be DENIED.
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of
the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected
to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum on law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
Case: 1:25-cv-00196-MWM-SKB Doc #: 18 Filed: 02/05/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections
WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
February 5, 2026 	s/Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Chief Magistrate Judge
Case: 1:25-cv-00196-MWM-SKB Doc #: 18 Filed: 02/05/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>