TOLBERT v. WARDEN, WARREN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 1:15-cv-293. (2016)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20160201753
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jan. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 15, 2016
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 10) TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This case 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 J. Gregory Wehrman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on December 28, 2015, submitted a Repor
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 10) TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This case 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 J. Gregory Wehrman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on December 28, 2015, submitted a Report..
More
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 10)
TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge.
This case 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 J. Gregory Wehrman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on December 28, 2015, submitted a Report and Recommendations. (Doc. 10). 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 such Report and Recommendations should be and is hereby adopted in its entirety. Accordingly:
1. Respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED and Petitioner's Petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice;
2. A certificate of appealability will not issue since "jurists of reason" would not find it debatable whether this Court is correct in its procedural ruling that Petitioner's claims are time-barred;
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; and
4. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly whereupon this case is TERMINATED in this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
