Morris v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institute
OPINION and ORDER ADOPTING and AFFIRMING the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 23 in that the Court DENIES the Petition, DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE, and ORDERS that no certificate of appealability issue because reasonable jurists would not debate whether Petitioners claims are procedurally defaulted. Signed by Judge Sarah D. Morrison on 8/1/22. (sem)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
Case: 2:20-cv-01803-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 27 Filed: 08/01/22 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 341
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Michael T. Morris,
- vs -
Case No. 2:20-cv-1803
Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
Warden, Noble Correctional Institution,
OPINION AND ORDER
The Magistrate Judge’s detailed December 17, 2021 Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 23) recommended that: (1) the Petition be denied and
the action be dismissed with prejudice because Petitioner’s habeas claims were
procedurally defaulted and (2) no certificate of appealability issue as to any of
Petitioner’s claims of relief. Petitioner timely objects. (ECF No. 26.) “A litigant who
objects to a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation on a dispositive matter
is entitled to a de novo review by a District Judge of all substantial objections.”
Armengau v. Warden, No. 2:19-cv-1146, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25652, at *1 (S.D.
Ohio Feb. 14, 2022) (Merz, M.J.).
Petitioner argues that his guilty plea was entered under duress such that
this is an extraordinary habeas corpus case sufficient to overcome the procedural
bar to review. (ECF No. 26.) Upon de novo review, the Court OVERRULES the
objection. (ECF No. 26.) The R&R correctly provides that Petitioner must produce
reliable evidence of actual innocence to overcome the procedural bar to review. (ECF
No. 23, PageID 328-29.) The Objection does not do so, instead focusing solely on the
Case: 2:20-cv-01803-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 27 Filed: 08/01/22 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 342
validity of his plea agreement. (ECF No. 26.) The Court therefore ADOPTS the
R&R (ECF No. 23) in full, DENIES the Petition, DISMISSES this action WITH
PREJUDICE, and ORDERS that no certificate of appealability issue because
reasonable jurists would not debate whether Petitioner’s claims are procedurally
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Sarah D. Morrison
SARAH D. MORRISON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?