Opinion
Case No. 1:09-cv-317.
December 15, 2010
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendations filed by the Magistrate Judge on July 9, 2010 (Doc. 29), Petitioner's objections (Doc. 30), and the Supplemental Report and Recommendations filed by the Magistrate Judge on September 3, 2010 (Doc. 34). No objections have been filed to the Supplemental Report and Recommendation, and the time for filing such objections under Fed.R.Civ. 72(b) expired on December 3, 2010.
Proper notice was 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).
Upon de novo review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendations to be correct. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendations and the Supplemental Report and Recommendations are hereby ADOPTED. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
A certificate of appealability should not issue with respect to Petitioner's claims for relief under the applicable two-part standard enunciated in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). With respect to any application by Petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in "good faith," and therefore DENIES Petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis upon a showing of financial necessity. See Fed.R.App.P. 24(a); Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 1997).