Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Ikharo v. Attorney General of U.S., 1:19-cv-175. (2020)

Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio Number: infdco20200312756 Visitors: 9
Filed: Mar. 06, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 06, 2020
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION KAREN L. LITKOVITZ , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability (Doc. 27). Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. ( Id., at PageID 225). On January 29, 2020, a final Order and Judgment were entered in this case adopting the undersigned's Report and Recommendation to deny the petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. ( See Docs. 16-18). In the final
More

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability (Doc. 27). Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. (Id., at PageID 225).

On January 29, 2020, a final Order and Judgment were entered in this case adopting the undersigned's Report and Recommendation to deny the petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (See Docs. 16-18). In the final Order, the Court denied a certificate of appealability, certified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in "good faith," and denied petitioner leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis upon a showing of financial necessity. (See Doc. 17). On February 26, 2020, the Court granted petitioner an extension of time to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, overruled the objections, and denied petitioner's motion to reconsider. (Doc. 24).

For the reasons previously given by the Court in its January 29, 2020 Order (Doc. 17) and its February 26, 2020 Order (Doc. 24), petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability and for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 27) should be denied.

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability and for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 27) be DENIED.

NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party's objections WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

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