Dixon v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution
ORDER AND ENTRY: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOCS. 3 , 10 ); (2) OVERRULING PETITIONERS OBJECTIONS (DOCS. 7 , 13 ); (3) DISMISSING PETITIONERS PETITION WITH PREJUDICE; (4) DENYING A CERTI FICATE OF APPEALABILITY; (5) CERTIFYING THAT ANY APPEAL WOULD BE OBJECTIVELY FRIVOLOUS AND FINDING THAT IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS SHOULD BE DENIED ON APPEAL; AND (6) TERMINATING THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Michael J. Newman on 1/6/21. (srb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
Case: 3:20-cv-00383-MJN-MRM Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/06/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 81
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
DEANDRE D. DIXON,
Case No. 3:20-cv-383
CHAE HARRIS, Warden,
Lebanon Correctional Institution,
District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
ORDER AND ENTRY: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOCS. 3, 10); (2) OVERRULING
PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS (DOCS. 7, 13); (3) DISMISSING PETITIONER’S
PETITION WITH PREJUDICE; (4) DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY; (5) CERTIFYING THAT ANY APPEAL WOULD BE
OBJECTIVELY FRIVOLOUS AND FINDING THAT IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS
SHOULD BE DENIED ON APPEAL; AND (6) TERMINATING THIS CASE
This civil case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendations (doc. 3) and
Supplemental Report and Recommendations (doc. 10) issued by United States Magistrate Judge
Michael R. Merz (hereinafter referred to jointly as “Reports and Recommendations”), to whom
this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Pro se Petitioner filed objections to both
Reports and Recommendations. Docs. 7, 13.1 As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b), the Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and
considered de novo all filings in this matter, including Petitioner’s objections.
Judge Merz issued an Order striking Petitioner’s objections to the Supplemental Report and
Recommendations on the basis that the objections were not timely filed. Doc. 14. The undersigned
nevertheless reviewed Petitioner’s objections and finds that they are without substantive merit even if not
stricken on procedural grounds.
Case: 3:20-cv-00383-MJN-MRM Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/06/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 82
Upon careful de novo consideration of the foregoing, the Court determines that the Report
and Recommendations (docs. 3,10) should be adopted and that Petitioner’s objections (docs. 7,
13) should be overruled. Accordingly, the Court: (1) ADOPTS the Reports and Recommendations
of the Magistrate Judge (docs. 3, 10) in their entirety; (2) OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections
(docs. 7, 13); (3) DISMISSES that Petitioner’s petition (doc. 1) WITH PREJUDICE; (4)
DENIES Petitioner a certificate of appealability; (5) CERTIFIES that any appeal would be
objectively frivolous and that Petitioner should be denied in forma pauperis on appeal; and (6)
TERMINATES this case on the Court’s docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 6, 2021
s/ Michael J. Newman
Michael J. Newman
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?