COMBS v. COOK, 1:14-cv-88. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20150527d12
Visitors: 25
Filed: May 26, 2015
Latest Update: May 26, 2015
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 32) TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This habeas corpus case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and, on February 6, 2015, submit
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 32) TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This habeas corpus case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and, on February 6, 2015, submitt..
More
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 32)
TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge.
This habeas corpus case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and, on February 6, 2015, submitted a Report and Recommendations. (Doc. 32). Petitioner timely filed Objections. (Doc. 38).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 of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does determine that such Reports and Recommendations should be and are hereby adopted in their entirety. Accordingly:
1. The Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 32) is ADOPTED in its entirety;
2. Petitioner's Objections (Doc. 38) are OVERRULED;
3. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice;
4. Any request for a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) is DENIED;
5. The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal of this Order would be objectively frivolous, and therefore DENIES Petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis. He remains free, however, to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals; and
6. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is TERMINATED on the Court's docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Magistrate Judge concluded that all of Petitioner's claims for relief were procedurally defaulted and that Petitioner had not shown excusing cause and prejudice. (Doc. 32 at 9). For the first time in his Objections, Petitioner argues that he can overcome the procedural default. (Doc. 38). "A federal court will review a state prisoner's procedurally defaulted federal claim if the prisoner shows `cause' for the default and `prejudice' from the error, or if a manifest miscarriage of justice would otherwise result." Sutton v. Carpenter, 745 F.3d 787, 789-90 (6th Cir. 2014). Petitioner has not made the requite showings necessary to excuse his procedural default.
Source: Leagle
