Beltowski v. Bradshaw

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation. Petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. Motion for order instruction respondent to supply copy of transcript (doc #12, Motion for reconsideration (doc#22) and motion for judg ment on pleadings (doc #23) are denied. The court certifies that an appeal of this decision could not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 USC 1915(a)(3). Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, no certificate of appealability shall issue. Judge Jack Zouhary on 12/23/09. (B,CJ)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Stephen C. Beltowski, Petitioner, -vsJUDGE JACK ZOUHARY Margaret Bradshaw, Respondent. Case No. 1:08 CV 2651 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Petitioner Stephen Beltowski, a prisoner in state custody, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1). The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Vernelis Armstrong for a Report and Recommendation (R&R) pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). The Magistrate Judge filed the R&R on November 30, 2009 (Doc. No. 24). Under the relevant statute: Within ten days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The ten-day period has elapsed and no objections have been filed. The failure to file written objections constitutes a waiver of a de novo determination by the district court of an issue covered in the report. United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (2005).

The Court has reviewed the R&R, and having found it legally and factually accurate, adopts the R&R in its entirety. Therefore, the Court denies the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1). The Motion for Order Instructing Respondent to Supply a Copy of Transcript (Doc. No. 12), Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 22), and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 23) are also denied. Petitioner has failed to show the existence of any set of facts upon which he could prevail. Accordingly, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court certifies that an appeal of this action could not be taken in good faith. Further, as Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, no certificate of appealability shall issue. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Jack Zouhary JACK ZOUHARY U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE December 23, 2009

2