Chandler v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Insititution

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING 17 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§2254 (Doc. 2) is DENIED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability will not issue w ith respect to the grounds for relief set forth in the petition. With respect to any application by petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the Court will certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of any Order adopting the Report and Recommendation will not be taken in "good faith," and therefore DENY petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis upon a showing of financial necessity. Signed by Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott on 7/29/13. (mtw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Mario Chandler,
Petitioner(s),
vs.
Warden Lebanon Correctional Institution,
Respondent(s).

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case Number: 1:12cv78
Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott

ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States
Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge
reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on June 11, 2013 a Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 17). Subsequently, the petitioner filed objections to such Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 20).
The Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and
considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the
Court does determine that such Recommendation should be adopted.
Accordingly, petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§2254 (Doc. 2) is DENIED with prejudice.
A certificate of appealability will not issue with respect to the grounds for relief set forth
in the petition, which were addressed on the merits herein, because petitioner has not stated a
“viable claim of the denial of a constitutional right” or that the issues presented are “adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.” See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 475 (2000)

(citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253 ( c ); Fed.
R. App. P. 22(b).
With respect to any application by petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the
Court will certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of any Order adopting the
Report and Recommendation will not be taken in “good faith,” and therefore DENY petitioner
leave to appeal in forma pauperis upon a showing of financial necessity. See Fed. R. App. P.
24(a); Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 1997).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

___s/Susan J. Dlott___________
Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott
United States District Court