Robinson v. Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Otisville,

Filing 9

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS 4 TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 ; OVERRULING OBJECTIONS 8 TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 ; ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 IN THEIR ENTIRETY; DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF (DOC. 2) WITH PREJUDICE; AND TERMINATING THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Thomas Rose on 9-27-2016. (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
EDWARD ROBINSON,
Case No. 3:16-cv-167
Petitioner,
v.

Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

WARDEN, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION, OTISVILLE, NEW
YORK
Respondent.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOC. 4) TO THE REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 3); OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOC. 8)
TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 6);
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 3) AND
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 6) IN THEIR
ENTIRETY; DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF
(DOC. 2) WITH PREJUDICE; AND TERMINATING THIS CASE
______________________________________________________________________________
This case is before the Court on the Objections (Docs. 4, 8) filed by Petitioner Edward
Robinson (“Robinson”) to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. 3) and
Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Doc. 6), – all of which recommend that the Court
dismiss with prejudice Robinson’s Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On
July 8, 2016, Robinson filed his Objections (8) to the Supplemental Report and Recommendations.
Respondent, Warden of the Federal Correctional Institution, (the “Warden”) located in Otisville,
New York, did not file a response to those Objections (Doc. 8) or to the other Objection (Doc. 4)
filed by Robinson. As the time for the Warden to file a response to Robinson’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 Supplemental Report and
Recommendations, Robinson does not assert any new substantive objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s analysis and conclusions. Upon review, the Court finds that Robinson’s prior Objections
(Docs. 4, 8) have no merit, and were adequately addressed by the Magistrate Judge in both the
Report and Recommendations (Doc. 3) and Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Doc. 6).
As a result, no further analysis is required here.
Robinson’s Objections (Docs. 4, 8) are not well taken and are hereby OVERRULED.
The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 3), Supplemental Report and
Recommendations (Doc. 6), 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. 2);



Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with the Court’s conclusion,
Robinson 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 Tuesday, September 27, 2016

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

2