Gover v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 10/19/2015. (cw)(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
MICHAEL GOVER,
Petitioner,
Case No. 2:14-cv-2686
Judge Marbley
Magistrate Judge King

v.
WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent.

ORDER
On September 9, 2015, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Respondent’s Motion to
Dismiss, ECF No. 8, be granted and that this action be dismissed. Report and Recommendation,
ECF No. 17. Petitioner has objected to that recommendation. Objection, ECF No. 21. 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. 21, is OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation, ECF
No. 17, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 8, is
GRANTED.
The Magistrate Judge recommended that this action be dismissed as time-barred.
Petitioner contends that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled because he has been
placed in behavioral schools throughout his life, and because his attorney failed to file a timely
appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court. Petitioner again insists that he cannot represent himself
without the assistance of a jailhouse attorney and argues that he has raised this same issue
throughout his filings in the state courts. Finally, Petitioner disputes the 2005 psychological

1 

evaluation of Ken Tecklenburg, Ph.D., and contends that the Magistrate Judge failed to take into
account the entirety of that report.
For the reasons detailed in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,
Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive.

The record offers no support for Petitioner’s

allegation that he could not timely file this habeas corpus petition or that equitable tolling of the
statute of limitations is appropriate. Petitioner waited more than seven years after his judgment
of conviction became final to pursue habeas corpus proceedings. Plainly, this action is barred by
the one-year statute of limitations established by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
.

Therefore, Petitioner’s Objection, ECF No. 21, is OVERRULED. The Report and

Recommendation, ECF No. 17, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.

Respondent’s Motion to

Dismiss, ECF No. 8, is GRANTED.
This action is hereby DISMISSED as untimely.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter FINAL JUDGMENT.

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

2