DeLawder v. Warden Mansfield Correctional Institution

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 20 Report and Recommendation in all respects. The Court DISMISSES Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 with prejudice. The Court further FINDS that a certificate ofappealability s hould not issue with respect to Petitioner's claims alleged in the Petition, and CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that with respect to any application by Petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, 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. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 9/9/2014.(km1) Modified Docket Text to Correct Signature Date on 9/9/2014 (km1).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
LARRY DELAWDER,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, MANSFIELD
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

NO. 1:13-CV-00487
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s
August 5, 2014 Report and Recommendation (doc. 20).

No Objection

has been filed.
Proper notice was provided to the Parties under Title 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including the notice that they would waive
further

appeal

if

they

failed

to

file

an

objection

to

the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in a timely manner.
See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
Having reviewed this matter de novo, pursuant to Title 28
U.S.C. § 636, the Court concludes the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation is correct that Petitioner’s ten grounds for relief
are lacking in merit or procedurally defaulted.

Accordingly, the

Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Report and Recommendation in all
respects (doc. 20), and DISMISSES Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ
of Habeas Corpus (doc. 1) with prejudice. The Court further FINDS
that a certificate of appealability should not issue with respect

to Petitioner’s claims alleged in the Petition, because Petitioner
has not stated a “viable claim of the denial of a constitutional
right,”

nor

are

the

issues

presented

encouragement to proceed further.”
473, 475 (2000).

“adequate

to

deserve

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

Finally, the Court CERTIFIES pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that with respect to any application by
Petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, 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: September 9, 2014

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

2