Middlebrook v. Warden, Hocking Correctional Facility, 1:16-cv-694. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20200102657
Visitors: 11
Filed: Dec. 31, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 31, 2019
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 31) TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and on December 5, 2019, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 31). No objections were filed. As required by 28 U.S.C. 636(b
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 31) TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and on December 5, 2019, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 31). No objections were filed. As required by 28 U.S.C. 636(b)..
More
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 31)
TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge.
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and on December 5, 2019, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 31). 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 Recommendation (Doc. 31) should be and is hereby ADOPTED in its entirety.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above:
1) Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED with prejudice;
2) A certificate of appealability shall not issue because Petitioner has not stated a viable claim of the denial of a constitutional right, nor are the issues presented adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further;
3) An appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith, and accordingly Petitioner is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis; and
4) The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is TERMINATED on the docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
