Filed: Jul. 30, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 30, 2012
Summary: ORDER SANDRA S. BECKWITH, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed July 5, 2012 (Doc. 21). 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
Summary: ORDER SANDRA S. BECKWITH, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed July 5, 2012 (Doc. 21). 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 July 5, 2012 (Doc. 21).
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, as supplemented, is DISMISSED with prejudice. Respondents' motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
A certificate of appealability will not issue in this case, because under the firstprong of the applicable two-part standard enunciated in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000), "jurists of reason" would not find it debatable whether the Court is correct in itsprocedural ruling on a jurisdictional issue.1
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).
