Kidd-Littlebird v. Hamilton County

Filing 5

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING 3 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Petitioner's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 4) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A certificate of appealability shall not issue with respect to any of th e grounds for relief alleged in the petition. The Court certifies that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore Petitioner is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 5/3/17. (gs)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
ROY-EDWARD KIDD-LITTLEBIRD,
Petitioner,
vs.
HAMLTON COUNTY,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:16-cv-1151
Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge J. Gregory Wehrman

DECISION AND ENTRY
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 3)
This case 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 J. Gregory Wehrman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate
Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on January 27, 2017, submitted a
Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 3). No objections were filed.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), 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 Report and Recommendations should be and is hereby adopted in
its entirety. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1)

Petitioner’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 4) is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

1

2)

A certificate of appealability shall not issue with respect to any of the
grounds for relief alleged in the petition because 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);

3)

The Court certifies that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal of
this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore Petitioner is
denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 5/3/17
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge

2