Harouna-Konate v. DHS/ICE

Filing 6

ORDER adopting 4 Report and Recommendations :Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 1/17/2017. Accordingly, the petitioners pro se Petition for a Writ of Coram Nobis (see Doc. 1, Petition) is DISMISSED with prejudice on the ground that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. It is further ORDERED that petitioners motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) is DENIED as moot. (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

Harouna-Konate,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Petitioner(s),
vs.
DHS/ICE,
Respondent(s).

Case Number: 1:16cv895
Judge Susan J. Dlott

ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Stephanie K. Bowman filed on October 17, 2016 (Doc. 4), 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 December 1, 2016 hereby
ADOPTS said Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, the petitioner’s pro se “Petition for a Writ of Coram Nobis” (see Doc. 1,
Petition) is DISMISSED with prejudice on the ground that this Court lacks jurisdiction to
consider it. It is further ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. 1) is DENIED as moot.
A certificate of appealability will not issue since 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).
With respect to any application by petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the

Court certifies 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