Malone v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution
ORDER ADOPTING 8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Accordingly, respondents motion to dismiss (Doc. 5) is GRANTED. The petition for awrit of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice onthe ground that the petition is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. §2246(d).. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 3/12/2018. (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
Warden, Chillicothe Correctional
Case Number: 1:16cv1160
Judge Susan J. Dlott
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Stephanie K. Bowman filed on February 6, 2018 (Doc. 8), 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 February 28, 2018, hereby
ADOPTS said Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 5) is GRANTED. The 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 petition is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. §2246(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.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-485 (2000), “jurists of reason” will not find it debatable whether
the Court is correct in its procedural ruling. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for a certificate of
appealability is DENIED. (Doc. 7).
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. 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?