Crowe v. Brunsman

Full title: Dale Crowe, Petitioner, v. Timothy Brunsman, Warden, Respondent

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

Date published: Jan 12, 2009

Case No. 1:07-cv-988 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 12, 2009)

Opinion

Case No. 1:07-cv-988.

January 12, 2009

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

SANDRA BECKWITH, District Judge

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed December 16, 2008 (Doc. 9).

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 have been filed to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

Having reviewed this matter de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, we find the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to be correct.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report is ADOPTED as follows:

1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED with prejudice.

2) A certificate of appealability will not issue with respect to the claims alleged in the petition because petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right remediable in this habeas corpus proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed.R.App.P. 22(b).

3) The Court hereby certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that with respect to any application by petitioner to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 (6^th Cir. 1997). Petitioner remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court of Appeals.

SO ORDERED.