Kaeding v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS - It is respectfully recommended that Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (ECF No. 80) be DENIED. Petitioner can apply directly to the Sixth Circuit for le ave to appeal in forma pauperis at the same time as he applies for a certificate of appealability. Objections to R&R due by 10/31/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 10/12/2016. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
MARK H. KAEDING,
Case No. 1:11-cv-121
District Judge Michael R. Barrett
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
-vsWARDEN, Lebanon Correctional
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTION TO APPEAL IN
This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Appeal in
forma pauperis (ECF No. 80).
On September 19, 2016, District Judge Barrett adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendations on the Merits (ECF No. 45). Therein, the Magistrate Judge recommended that
the District Court “certify to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would not be taken in objective good
faith.” Although no separate mention is made of this point in the Opinion and Order adopting the
Report, a District Judge reviewing a report and recommendations is not required to discuss each
point in the report, but only those to which specific objection is made. Thus Judge Barrett’s
adoption of the Report and Recommendations on the Merits renders the instant Motion moot. In
addition, Petition has made no showing that an appeal would be taken in objective good faith.
It is therefore respectfully recommended that the Motion be DENIED. Petitioner can
apply directly to the Sixth Circuit for leave to appeal in forma pauperis at the same time as he
applies for a certificate of appealability.
October 12, 2016.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this Report
and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to seventeen days
because this Report is being served by one of the methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ. P.
5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F). Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and
shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and
Recommendations are based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of 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
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party=s objections within
fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance
with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947,
949-50 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?