Opinion
Case No. 1:08-cv-343.
April 6, 2009
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed March 12, 2009 (Doc. 19).
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 the claim alleged in Ground One of the petition, because under the first prong of the applicable two-part standard established in Slack v McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000), "jurists of reason" would not find it debatable whether this Court is correct in its procedural rulings. In addition, a certificate of appealability will not issue with respect to the claims alleged in Grounds Two and Three, because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right based on such claims. See 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).
This action is closed.