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.)

Download PDF
  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   

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?