Eldridge v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND JUDGMENT it hereby is, adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court; that petitioners Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), is denied with prejudice. Signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 06/29/2017. (bjc)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-40 (WOB-JGW)

PETER D. ELDRIDGE

VS.

PETITIONER

JUDGMENT

WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

RESPONDENT

This matter is before the Court on the Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 14),
and having considered de novo those objections filed thereto by
Petitioner (Doc. 17), and the Court being sufficiently advised,
IT IS ORDERED that the objections (Doc. 17) to the Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 14) be, and hereby are, overruled. That
the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 14)
be, and it hereby is, adopted as the findings of fact and
conclusions of law of this Court; that 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 shall
not issue with respect to the claims alleged in the petition.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), any application by
petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis would be not
be taken in “good faith.”

This 29th day of June, 2017.