Heid v. Warden, Ross Correctional Institution

Filing 27

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 21 ). Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 2/14/2017. (mr)(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
RAY SCOTT HEID,
Petitioner,
vs.
WARDEN, ROSS
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:16-cv-234
Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

DECISION AND ENTRY
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 21)
This case 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 filed with this Court and, on November 21, 2016, submitted
a Report and Recommendations. (Doc. 21). Petitioner filed objections on Jan. 10, 2017.
(Doc. 25).1

1

After reviewing the Report and Recommendations, Petitioner’s objections, and the case
record, the Court finds that Petitioner’s objections are not well taken. The Report and
Recommendations recommended Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as
time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Petitioner’s objections make two main arguments in
response: 1) that a jurisdictional challenge can be raised at any time, including in a federal
habeas action past the expiration of the statute of limitations, and 2) that he is entitled to
equitable tolling. The Report and Recommendation adequately addressed and dismissed both
arguments, and Petitioner’s objections add no new information to counter the Magistrate Judge’s
analysis on the issue. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed as
time-barred.
1

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), 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 Report and Recommendations should be and is hereby adopted in
its entirety. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1)

Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED;

2)

Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

3)

A certificate of appealability shall 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. P. 22(b);

4)

The Court certifies that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal of
this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore Petitioner is
denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 2/14/17

________________________
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge

2