Richardson v. Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 8 Report and Recommendations: Petitioners petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 (Doc. 1) is DENIED with prejudice.A certificate of appealability will not issue with res pect to the claims alleged in thepetition, which this Court has concluded are waived and thus procedurally barred from review. With respect to any application by petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the Court will certify pursuant to 2 8 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, will DENY petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis upon a showing of financial necessity. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 6/23/2014. (jlw)

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

Quran Richardson,
Petitioner(s),
vs.
Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility,
Respondent(s).

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case Number: 1:13cv761
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 March 24, 2015 a Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 8). Subsequently, the petitioner filed objections to such Report and
Recommendation and respondent filed a response to the objections (Doc. 14).
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. 1) is DENIED with prejudice.
A certificate of appealability will not issue with respect to the claims alleged in the
petition, which this Court has concluded are waived and thus procedurally barred from review,
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” will not find it debatable whether

this Court is correct in its procedural ruling. In addition, a certificate of appealability will not
issue with respect to the claims addressed on the merits herein in the absence of a substantial
showing that petitioner has 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, 529
U.S. at 475 (citing Barefoot v. Esteele, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)); see also 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, will 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___________
Judge Susan J. Dlott
United States District Court