Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

FOSTER v. WARDEN, LEBANON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 1:10cv425. (2012)

Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio Number: infdco20120319828 Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 16, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 16, 2012
Summary: ORDER SUSAN J. DLOTT, Chief District Judge. This matter 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 Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on September 6, 2011 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8). Subsequently, the petitioner filed objections to such Report and Recommendation
More

ORDER

SUSAN J. DLOTT, Chief District Judge.

This matter 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 Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on September 6, 2011 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8). Subsequently, the petitioner filed objections to such Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10).

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 Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is DENIED with prejudice.

A certificate of appealability will not issue with respect to the claim alleged in the petition, which this Court has concluded is waived and thus procedurally barred from review, because under the first prong of the applicable two-part standard enunciated in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000), "jurists of reason" will not find it debatable whether this Court is correct in its procedural ruling. In addition, a certificate of appealability will not issue with respect to the claim addressed alternatively on the merits herein in the absence of a substantial showing that petitioner has stated a "viable claim of the denial of a constitutional right" or that the issues presented are "adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." See Slack, 529 U.S. at 475 (citing 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).

With respect to any application by petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the Court will certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of any Order adopting the Report and Recommendation will not be taken in "good faith," and therefore DENIES petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis upon a showing of financial necessity. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer