Westbrook v. Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS : Accordingly, respondents motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED and petitioners petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certifica te of appealability will not issue with respect to any of petitioners time-barredclaims. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 3/20/2017. (jlw)(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

Joey S. Westbrook,

:
:
:
:
:
:

Petitioner(s),
vs.
Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction,
Respondent(s).

Case Number: 1:14cv934
Judge Susan J. Dlott

:
:
:

ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge J. Gregory Wehrman filed on February 4, 2016 (Doc. 13), to whom this case was referred
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the
time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) expired September 30, 2016, hereby
ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations.
Petitioner filed three motions for extension of time to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. The Court granted each motion for an extension of time and petitioner failed
to file his objections.
Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED and petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with
prejudice.
A certificate of appealability will not issue with respect to any of petitioner’s time-barred
claims 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 the

Court is correct in its procedural ruling that such claims are subject to dismissal on statute of
limitations grounds.
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, therefore, DENYING 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