Perotti v. Erdos, 1:18-cv-477. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20190730e81
Visitors: 1
Filed: Jul. 29, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 29, 2019
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This habeas corpus case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz (ECF No. 24). Upon the filing of that Report, Petitioner was notified of his right to object and of the time limits for doing so. Id. at PageID 461. Despite having sought and received an extension of time to object, Petitioner has not done so. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendations are ADOPTED. The Clerk will enter j
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This habeas corpus case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz (ECF No. 24). Upon the filing of that Report, Petitioner was notified of his right to object and of the time limits for doing so. Id. at PageID 461. Despite having sought and received an extension of time to object, Petitioner has not done so. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendations are ADOPTED. The Clerk will enter ju..
More
DECISION AND ORDER
TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge.
This habeas corpus case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz (ECF No. 24). Upon the filing of that Report, Petitioner was notified of his right to object and of the time limits for doing so. Id. at PageID 461. Despite having sought and received an extension of time to object, Petitioner has not done so.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendations are ADOPTED. The Clerk will enter judgment dismissing the portions of the Petition attacking Petitioner's federal conviction for lack of jurisdiction and the remaining portions of the Petition attacking Petitioner's parole revocation as duplicative of claims made in Case No. 1:18-cv-446. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability on the habeas corpus claims and the Court certifies to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be objectively frivolous and therefore should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.
Source: Leagle
