Morris v. Warden Franklin Medical Center

Filing 6

ORDER adopting 3 Report and Recommendations, DENYING Petitioner's Objection. This action is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to enter FINAL JUDGMENT. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 10/30/2014. (cw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
KENNETH L. MORRIS,
Petitioner,
vs.

Civil Action 2:14-cv-1888
Judge Marbley
Magistrate Judge King

WARDEN, FRANKLIN MEDICAL CENTER,
Respondent.

ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petition, ECF 2. On October 15,
2014, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that the Petition
be dismissed for failure to state a claim for habeas corpus relief.
Order and Report and Recommendation, ECF 3.

This matter is now before

the Court on petitioner’s objection to that recommendation. Objection,
ECF 5. The Court will consider the matter de novo.

See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Petition alleges simply,
“No state substantive law invoked in this case in violation
of the Fourt[h] and Fourteenth Amendment. No public record
of any substantive law which comports with the Fourth
Amendment. Thereby denying me the due process of law.
Id. at PAGEID# 8. As noted by the Magistrate Judge, the Petition
contains no facts in support of his claim that he is in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States.
In his objections, petitioner argues that “no substantive law was

1

invoked in this case.”

Objection, PageID# 39. Petitioner also

contends that he “is entitled to hear from the Respondent.”

Id.,

PageID# 40.
This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the Petition,
even liberally construed, alleges no facts whatsoever that would
support a claim that petitioner was convicted in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States. See Rule 2(c) of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (A
petition must, among other things, “state the facts supporting each
ground. . . .”). Simply put, the Petition does allege a basis for
concluding that petitioner is entitled to relief, nor does it present
a “‘real possibility of constitutional error.’”

Blackledge v.

Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n. 7 (1977)(quoting Advisory Committee Note
to Rule 4, Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases).
Petitioner’s objection to the Report and Recommendation is
DENIED.
AFFIRMED.

The Report and Recommendation, ECF 3, is ADOPTED AND
This action is DISMISSED.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter FINAL JUDGMENT.
Moreover, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of
appealability.

s/Algenon L. Marbley
Algenon L. Marbley
United States District Judge

2