Simpson v. Warden Madsion Correctional Institution

Filing 26

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING THE INITIAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 17 ) AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. No. 24 ); (2) OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS (Doc. Nos. 22 , 25 ); (3) DENYIN G AND DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE PETITIONERS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. No. 1 ); (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 ON THE DOCKET. Signed by Judge Michael J. Newman on 10/25/2024. (srb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
DAVID L. SIMPSON,
Petitioner,

Case No. 3:23-cv-253

v.
WARDEN, Madison
Correctional Institution,

District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

Respondent.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING THE INITIAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc.
No. 17) AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. No. 24); (2) OVERRULING
PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. Nos. 22, 25); (3) DENYING AND DISMISSING
WITH PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(Doc. No. 1); (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 ON THE DOCKET
______________________________________________________________________________
Petitioner David L. Simpson, an inmate in state custody, brings this case through counsel
seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. No. 1. This case is before the
Court upon the initial and supplemental Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate
Judge Michael R. Merz, to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). See Doc.
Nos. 17, 24. Judge Merz recommends that this Court dismiss the petition with prejudice. Doc. No.
17 at PageID 935-36; Doc. No. 24 at PageID 986-87. Petitioner has timely filed objections to both
Report and Recommendations. Doc. Nos. 22, 25. 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.

Upon careful de novo consideration of the foregoing, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s
objections lack merit and that the two Report and Recommendations correctly analyze the petition
and reach well-reasoned conclusions. See Doc. No. 17 at PageID 922-36; Doc. No. 24 at PageID
979-87.
Accordingly, the Court (1) ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and Supplemental
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; (2) OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections; (3)
DENIES and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition; (4) DENIES
Petitioner a certificate of appealability; (5) CERTIFIES that any appeal would be objectively
frivolous and CONCLUDES that Petitioner should be denied in forma pauperis status on appeal;
and (6) TERMINATES this case on the docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 25, 2024

s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge

2