Fears v. Warden, London Correctional Institution

Filing 33

ORDER ADOPTING 27 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS : Accordingly, respondents motion to dismiss (Doc. 19) is GRANTED.Petitioners petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 (Doc. 3) is DISMISSED with prejudice.. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 9/8/2017. (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

William Fears,
Petitioner(s),
vs.
Warden, London Correctional Institution,
Respondent(s)

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case Number: 1:16cv805
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 Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge
reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on August 2, 2017 a Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 27). Subsequently, the petitioner filed objections to such Report and
Recommendation (Docs. 29 and 30).
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, respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 19) is GRANTED. Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 (Doc. 3) 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 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. Dlott
United States District Court