Bronson v. Warden, Warren Correctional Institution
Filing
17
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 12 ) AND TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 9/7/18. (jlm)(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
DANIEL BRONSON,
Petitioner,
vs.
WARDEN, WARREN
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUITION,
Respondent.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:17-cv-701
Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman
DECISION AND ENTRY
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 12) AND
TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United
States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the
Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on July 16, 2018,
submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 12). Petitioner filed objections on July
24, 2018. (Doc. 14).1
After reviewing the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner’s objections, and the case record,
the Court finds that Petitioner’s objections are not well taken. Petitioner raises several
objections, including that he is entitled to equitable tolling and therefore his federal habeas
corpus petition is not barred from review by the one-year statute of limitations governing habeas
corpus actions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 14 at 5–7). This argument is
without merit. The Court agrees with the finding of the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner is not
entitled to equitable tolling because he has not demonstrated that he has been diligent in pursuing
federal habeas relief or that an extraordinary circumstance prevented him from filing a timely
petition. (Doc. 12 at 9–10).
1
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 the Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby ADOPTED in
its entirety.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above:
1) Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 8) is GRANTED and the petition for
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 3) is DISMISSED
with prejudice;
2) 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, 484–85
(2000), “jurists of reason” will not find it debatable whether the Court is
correct in its procedural ruling.
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 DENIES petitioner leave
to appeal in forma pauperis. See Fed. R.App. P. 24(a); Kincade v. Sparkman,
117 F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 1997).
4) The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is
TERMINATED from the docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 9/7/2018
/s/ Timothy S. Black
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge
2
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?