Dixon v. Warden Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

Filing 22

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING DIXONS OBJECTIONS (Doc. # 20 ) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. # 19 ) IN ITS ENTIRETY; DISMISSING DIXONS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH PREJUDICE; DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DENYING ANY REQUESTED CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY BECAUSE ANY APPEAL WOULD BE OBJECTIVELY FRIVOLOUS; AND TERMINATING THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 02/11/13. (pb1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
WILLIAM R. DIXON
Case No. C-3:11-cv-150
Petitioner,
Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

-vWARDEN, Southern Ohio
Correctional Facility

Respondent.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING DIXON’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. #20)
TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS; ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. #19) IN ITS ENTIRETY;
DISMISSING DIXON’S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
WITH PREJUDICE; DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS; DENYING ANY REQUESTED CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY BECAUSE ANY APPEAL WOULD BE OBJECTIVELY
FRIVOLOUS; AND TERMINATING THIS CASE
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Petitioner William R. Dixon’s
(“Dixon’s”) Objections (doc. #20) to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman’s Report and
Recommendations (doc. #19). Upon review, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Dixon’s
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed with prejudice, that Dixon be denied a
Certificate of Appealability and that Dixon be denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
Dixon, through a limited appearance by counsel, filed the Objections that are now before
the Court. In the Objections, counsel indicated that Dixon wishes to file his own pro se
supplemental objections. Magistrate Newman entered an Order advising Dixon that he does not
have a right to be represented by counsel and simultaneously make pro se filings and further

advising Dixon to request an extension of time to file supplemental objections if he wished to do
so. The period for filing objections has now expired and nothing further has been filed.
The time has run and the Warden has not submitted a response to Dixon’s Objections.
Dixon’s Objections are, therefore, ripe for decision.
As required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 72(b), the
District Judge has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court
finds that Dixon’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations are not
well-taken, and they are hereby OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendations is adopted in its entirety.
Dixon’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed with prejudice. Further, Dixon
is denied a Certificate of Appealability and any requested leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
Finally, the captioned cause is hereby ordered terminated upon the docket records of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, at Dayton.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Eleventh Day of February, 2013.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
William R. Dixon at his last address of record

-2-