Opinion
Case No. 1:09-cv-392.
March 8, 2010
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed February 8, 2010 (Doc. 14).
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. Respondent's motion to dismiss is DENIED, and petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice.
A certificate of appealability will not issue with respect to the claims for relief, which this Court concluded are waived and thus barred from review on procedural grounds, because "jurists of reason would not find it debatable as to whether this Court is correct in its procedural rulings" under the first prong of the applicable two-part standard enunciated in Slack v McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000).
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).