Conlon v. Kelly

Filing 16

Order and Decision Adopting Report the re 10 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The petition is dismissed. An appeal from this decision may not be taken in good faith and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. Judge John R. Adams on 9/28/15. (K,C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
PETER CONLON,
Petitioner,
vs.
BENNIE KELLY, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:14CV1668
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS

ORDER AND DECISION

This matter is before the Court on objections filed by Petitioner, Peter Conlon, to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R & R”), which was filed on June 18, 2015.
Doc. 10. For the following reasons, Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED. This Court
ADOPTS the R & R of the Magistrate Judge and DISMISSES the petition for habeas corpus
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254.
The R & R adequately states the factual and procedural background in this case. Conlon
has demonstrated no error in that background, and as such, the Court will not reiterate that
section herein.
I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
If a party files written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation a

judge must perform a de novo review of “those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge.” 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1).

1

II.

LAW AND ANALYSIS
It is undisputed that Conlon had until August 29, 2003, to file his federal habeas petition.

Instead, Conlon waited more than 11 years to file. The Magistrate Judge properly determined
that his petition is now time-barred.
Conlon articulates a single objection to the R&R. Doc. 14 at 5-6. He argues that the
Magistrate Judge erred by failing to consider and analyze his claim for ineffective assistance of
counsel. Doc. 14 at 5-6. Conlon then uses the remainder of his “objections” to reiterate the
underlying substantive arguments of his petition.
In all of this, Conlon has offered no legal basis for extending the statute of limitations,
and he has presented no error in the Magistrate Judge’s underlying decision. He seems to
believe that the substantive arguments he has (which he allowed to languish for 11 years)
constitute such a manifest injustice that he should be allowed to file his petition whenever he
chooses. This argument is without merit. The Court finds that the R&R is correct and that
Conlon has exceeded the statute of limitations.
III.

CONCLUSION
This Court finds no merit to the objections raised by Petitioner Peter Conlon. Therefore,

Conlon’s objections are OVERRRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge. The Petition for Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED.
The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(A)(3), that an appeal from this decision
could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of
appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: September 28, 2015

/s/ John R. Adams_________________
Judge John R. Adams
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2