Groves v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 14 Report and Recommendation in all respects. The Court DISMISSES with prejudice Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254, on the ground that it is time- barred under 28 U.S.C. Section 2244(d). The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability and CERTIFIES that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore the Court DENIES Petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 10/20/2011. (km1) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/20/2011: # 1 Certified Mail Receipt) (km1).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

LARRY GROVES,
Petitioner,
vs.
OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

NO. 1:10-CV-735

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (doc. 14), to which there were no
objections.
Proper Notice has been given to the parties under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would
waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the
Report and Recommendation in a timely manner.
Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

United States v.

As of the date of this

Order, no objections have been filed.
Having reviewed this matter de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§

636,

the

Court

finds

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

Report

and

Recommendation thorough, well-reasoned, and correct.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 14) in all
respects, and DISMISSES with prejudice Petitioner’s petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 8), on the

ground that it is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The Court
DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability in this case
because under the first prong of the applicable two-part standard
enunciated in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000),
“jurists of reason,” would not find it debatable whether the Court
is

correct

in

its

procedural

ruling.

With

respect

to

any

application by Petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis,
the Court CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an
appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith, and
therefore the Court DENIES petitioner leave to appeal in forma
pauperis upon a showing of financial necessity.

Fed. R. App. P.

24(a), Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 1997).

SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 20, 2011

/s/ S. Arthur Spiegel
S. Arthur Spiegel
United States Senior District Judge

2