Nelson v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

Filing 19

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS 15 , 18 , ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 , GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 10 , DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 1 , AND TERMINATING CASE. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 9-11-2017. (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
FREDERICK NELSON,

:
Case No. 3:17-cv-62
:
Petitioner,
:
Judge Thomas M. Rose
:
v.
:
:
CHARLOTTE JENKINS, Warden,
:
Chillicothe Correctional Institution,
:
:
Respondent.
:
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOCS. 15, 18),
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 14) AND
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 17),
GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 10),
DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS (DOC. 1), AND TERMINATING CASE
______________________________________________________________________________
This case is before the Court on the Objections (Docs. 15, 18) filed by Petitioner
Frederick Nelson (“Nelson”) to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations
(“Report”) (Doc. 14) and Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Doc. 17),
respectively. In the Report and Supplemental Report, Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
considered the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) filed by Respondent, Warden of the
Chillicothe Correctional Institution (“Warden”), and concluded that Nelson’s Petition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) (Doc. 1) is barred by
the statute of limitations. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Merz recommended that the
Court grant the Motion to Dismiss and dismiss the Petition with prejudice.

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. Upon said review, the Court
finds that Nelson’s Objections (Docs. 15, 18) to the Report (Doc. 14) and Supplemental
Report (Doc. 17), respectively, are not well-taken and they are hereby OVERRULED.
The Court ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 14) and Supplemental Report (Doc. 17) in their
entirety, GRANTS the Warden’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10), and DISMISSES WITH
PREJUDICE the Petition (Doc. 1) as barred by the statute of limitations. Because
reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, the Court denies any
requested certificate of appealability and certifies to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be objectively frivolous and should not be
permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk shall TERMINATE this case on the
Court’s docket.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Monday, September 11, 2017.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2