Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

CLEMENTS v. TIMMERMAN-COOPER, 1:11-cv-442. (2012)

Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio Number: infdco20120619b08 Visitors: 14
Filed: Jun. 18, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 18, 2012
Summary: ORDER SANDRA S. BECKWITH, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed May 25, 2012 (Doc. 10). Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. See United States v. Walters , 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). As of the date of this Order, no objections to
More

ORDER

SANDRA S. BECKWITH, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed May 25, 2012 (Doc. 10).

Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). As of the date of this Order, no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation have been filed.

Having reviewed this matter de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, we find the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation correct.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice.

A certificate of appealability will not issue with respect to any of the claims alleged because petitioner has not made a substantial showing that he has stated "viable claim[s] 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).

This 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 DENIES petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 1997).

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