Webster v. Warden, Mansfield Correctional Institution

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 5/25/2017. Accordingly, respondents motion to dismiss (Doc. 13) is GRANTED. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 (Doc. 8) is DISMISSED with prejudice on the ground that the petition is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d). (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

Tyrelle Webster,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

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

Case Number: 1:16cv879
Judge Susan J. Dlott

ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Karen L. Litkovitz filed on April 6, 2017 (Doc. 14), 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 April 20, 2017 hereby
ADOPTS said Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 13) is GRANTED. The petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 (Doc. 8) is DISMISSED with prejudice on
the ground that the petition is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d).
A certificate of appealability will not issue with respect to any of the claims for relief
alleged in the petition, which this Court has concluded are barred from review on a procedural
ground, because under the first prong of the applicable two-part standard enunciated in Slack v.
McDanaiel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000), “jurists of reason” will 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