Opinion
Case No. 1:07-cv-355.
April 11, 2008
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed March 19, 2008 (Doc. 7).
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 GRANTED, 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 alleged in Grounds Two through Five and Eight of the petition, which are barred from review on procedural statute of limitations grounds.
A certificate of appealability also will not issue with respect to the claims alleged in Grounds One, Six, Seven, Nine, Ten, and Eleven of the petition, because petitioner has not made a substantial showing that he has stated "viable claim[s] of the denial of a constitutional right" or that the issues presented are "adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." See Slack, 529 U.S. at 475 (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n. 4 (1983)); see also 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).