From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Grant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
Feb 3, 2014
Case No. 3:09-cr-045 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 3, 2014)

Opinion

Case No. 3:09-cr-045 Civil Case No. 3:13-cv-298

02-03-2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. CALILIN GRANT, Defendant.


Judge Thomas M. Rose

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING GRANT'S OBJECTIONS (Doc.

#206) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATIONS; ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. #205) IN ITS ENTIRETY;

DENYING GRANT'S AMENDED § 2255 MOTION (Doc. #204) WITH

PREJUDICE; DENYING ANY REQUESTED CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY AND CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL WOULD BE

OBJECTIVELY FRIVOLOUS

This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant Calilin Grant's ("Grant's") Objections (doc. #206) to Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz's Report and Recommendations (doc. #205) regarding Grant's Amended Motion To Vacate (doc. #204). Grant's Amended Motion To Vacate was filed pro se.

Magistrate Judge Merz's Report and Recommendations recommends that Grant's Amended § 2255 Motion To Vacate (doc. #204) be denied with prejudice and that Grant be denied a certificate of appealability. Magistrate Judge Merz also recommends that the Court certify to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be objectively frivolous.

The time has run and the Government has not responded to Grant's Objections. This matter is, therefore, ripe for decision.

As required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 72(b), the District Judge has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court finds that Grant's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations are not well-taken, and they are hereby OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations is adopted in its entirety.

Grant's Amended § 2255 Motion To Vacate is denied with prejudice. Further, because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion and an appeal would not be taken in objective good faith, Grant is denied any requested certificate of appealability. Finally, an appeal of this decision would be objectively frivolous.

DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Third Day of February, 2014.

_______________

THOMAS M. ROSE

UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
Calilin Grant at his last address of record


Summaries of

United States v. Grant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
Feb 3, 2014
Case No. 3:09-cr-045 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 3, 2014)
Case details for

United States v. Grant

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. CALILIN GRANT, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

Date published: Feb 3, 2014

Citations

Case No. 3:09-cr-045 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 3, 2014)