Smith v. Warden, Southeastern Correctional Institution

Filing 31

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 9/3/15. (lvw)(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
EASTERN DIVISION

GENERAL SMITH III,
Petitioner,
Case No. 2:14-cv-554
JUDGE SMITH
Magistrate Judge King

v.
WARDEN, SOUTHEASTERN
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent.
ORDER

On August 14, 2015, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this action for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be dismissed. See Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
29). Petitioner objects to that recommendation. See Objection (ECF No. 30.)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court has conducted a de novo review. For the
reasons that follow, Petitioner’s Objection (ECF No. 30) is OVERRULED. The Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 29) is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.

This action hereby is

DISMISSED.
Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
This case involves Petitioner’s challenge to the validity of the state trial court’s
November 29, 2007 sentence imposed pursuant to the terms of Petitioner’s negotiated guilty
plea. The Magistrate Judge concluded that at least some of Petitioner’s claims are time-barred
under the one-year statute of limitations established in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and that none of
Petitioner’s claims present an issue of a federal constitutional magnitude.

In his Objection, Petitioner raises the same arguments presented to and rejected by the
Magistrate Judge in her Report and Recommendation. For the reasons detailed in the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court is likewise not persuaded by Petitioner’s
arguments.
Petitioner’s Objection (ECF No. 30) is OVERRULED.
The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 29) is ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED.
This action is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter FINAL
JUDGMENT.
Moreover, and because “reasonable jurists could [not] debate whether (or, for that matter,
agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues
presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further,’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000)(quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n. 4 (1983)), Petitioner’s
request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

/s/ George C. Smith
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2