Anderson v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution, 1:18-cv-149. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20190618e85
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jun. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 17, 2019
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 15) AND TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on April 30, 2019, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 15). No objections were
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 15) AND TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on April 30, 2019, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 15). No objections were ..
More
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 15) AND TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT
TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge.
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on April 30, 2019, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 15). No objections were filed.
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 the Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby ADOPTED in its entirety.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above:
1. Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 3) is DENIED with prejudice.
2. A certificate of appealability shall not issue, because Petitioner has not stated a "valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right," nor are the issues presented "`adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
3. The Court certifies that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore Petitioner is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
4. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is TERMINATED from the docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
