Vunda v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Insititution

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 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 su ch Recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, the petitioners pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is DENIED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 7/22/2016. (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

Paul D. Vunda,
Petitioner(s),
vs.
Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution,
Respondent(s).

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case Number: 1:15cv301
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 Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed
the pleadings and filed with this Court on May 3, 2016 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 9).
Subsequently, the petitioner filed objections to such Report and Recommendation (Doc.11) and
the respondent filed a response to the objections (Doc. 12).
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, the petitioner’s pro se 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 any of the grounds for relief
alleged in the petition because petitioner has not stated a “viable claim of the denial of a
constitutional right,” nor are the issues presented “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. 22(b).
With respect to any application 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, petitioner is DENIED 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. Lott
United States District Court