Bates et al v. Dewine et al

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 3 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed by Beverly Croy, Misty C. Brickles, Family and Kind of Clayton M. Bates, R. Lotus Justice, Rachel N. Parks, Clayton M. Bates, 13 Motion to Compel filed by R. Lotus Justice, 9 Report and Recommendations,,,, 16 Motion to Compel filed by Rachel N. Parks, 2 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed by Donnie Barrerra, Beverly Croy, Misty C. Brickles, Family and Kind of Clayton M. Bates, R. Lotus Justice, Rachel N. Parks, Clayton M. Bates. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 1/30/2017. (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

Clayton M. Bates, et al.,
Petitioner(s),
vs.
Richard M. DeWine, et al.,
Respondent(s).

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case Number: 1:16cv975
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 October 31, 2016 a Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 9). Subsequently, the petitioner filed objections to such Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 12).
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, the petitioners’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§2254 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice on the ground that the Court lacks jurisdiction to
consider it and petitioners’ related motions (Docs. 2 and 3) are DENIED.
A certificate of appealability will not issue because petitioners have 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 © ); Fed. R.
App. P. 22(b).
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,” and, therefore,
petitioners are 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