Jordan v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Insititution

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Accordingly, respondents motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) is GRANTED. Petitioners petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED withprejudice. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 5/25/2017. (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

Michael Jordan,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

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

Case Number: 1:16cv559
Judge Susan J. Dlott

ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Karen L. Litkovitz filed on May 4, 2017 (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 May 18, 2017, hereby
ADOPTS said Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) is GRANTED. 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 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” would not find it debatable whether
the Court is correct in its procedural ruling.
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