From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carovillano v. Warden, Mansfield Correctional Facility

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Apr 13, 2010
Case No. 1:09-cv-225 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 13, 2010)

Opinion

Case No. 1:09-cv-225.

April 13, 2010


ORDER


This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed March 17, 2010 (Doc. 10).

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 is DENIED with prejudice.

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).


Summaries of

Carovillano v. Warden, Mansfield Correctional Facility

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Apr 13, 2010
Case No. 1:09-cv-225 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 13, 2010)
Case details for

Carovillano v. Warden, Mansfield Correctional Facility

Case Details

Full title:Matthew R. Carovillano, Petitioner v. Warden, Mansfield Correctional…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

Date published: Apr 13, 2010

Citations

Case No. 1:09-cv-225 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 13, 2010)