Simons v. Warden, Madison Correctional Institute

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Simons's Objections [15, 20, 24] are not well taken and are hereby OVERRULED, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations 13 , Supplemental Report and Recommendations 17 , and Second Supplemental Report and Recommendations 22 in their entirety, and rules as follows: The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the Petition for Habeas CorpusRelief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 1 ; because reasonable jurists would not disagree with the Court's co nclusion, Simons is DENIED a certificate of appealability; and the Court CERTIFIES to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that any appeal would be objectively frivolous and therefore Simons should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 10-16-2015. (de)(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
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
CARL R. SIMONS,
Case No. 3:14-cv-275
Petitioner,
v.

Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

RHONDA RICHARDS, Warden,
Respondent.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOC. 15) TO THE REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 13); OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOC. 20)
TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 17);
OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOC. 24) TO THE SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 22); ADOPTING THE REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 13), SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 17) AND SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 22) IN THEIR ENTIRETY; DISMISSING
THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF (DOC. 1) WITH PREJUDICE;
AND TERMINATING THIS CASE
______________________________________________________________________________
This case is before the Court on the Objections (Docs. 15, 20, 24) filed by Petitioner Carl
R. Simons (“Simons”) to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. 13),
Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Doc. 17), and Second Supplemental Report and
Recommendations (Doc. 22) – all of which recommend that the Court dismiss with prejudice
Simons’s Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 15, 2015,
Simons filed his Objections (Doc. 24) to the Second Supplemental Report and Recommendations.
Respondent Rhonda Richards, Warden of the Madison Correctional Institution, (the “Warden”)
did not file a response to those Objections (Doc. 24) or to any of the other Objections (Docs. 15,
20) filed by Simons. As the time for the Warden to file a response to Simons’s Objections has
expired, this matter is ripe for the Court’s review.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has
made a de novo review of the record in this case. In response to the Second Supplemental Report
and Recommendations, Simons does not assert any new substantive objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s analysis and conclusions. Instead, Simons merely “asks that his past objections be
considered.” (Doc. 24 at 4.) Upon review, the Court finds that Simons’s prior Objections (Docs.
15, 20) have no merit, and were adequately addressed by the Magistrate Judge in the Supplemental
Report and Recommendations (Doc. 17) and Second Supplemental Report and Recommendations
(Docs. 22). As a result, no further analysis is required here.
Simons’s Objections (Docs. 15, 20, 24) are not well taken and are hereby OVERRULED.
The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 13), Supplemental Report and
Recommendations (Doc. 17), and Second Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Doc. 22)
in their entirety, and rules as follows:


The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the Petition for Habeas Corpus
Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1);



Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with the Court’s conclusion, Simons
is DENIED a certificate of appealability; and



The Court CERTIFIES to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that any appeal
would be objectively frivolous and therefore Simons should not be permitted to
proceed in forma pauperis.

DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Friday, October 16, 2015.

s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2