Opinion
Case No. 1:15-cv-775
03-21-2019
BARRY PIPKIN, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN, LONDON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Defendant.
Magistrate Judge J. Gregory Wehrman DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE INITIAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Docs. 27, 33)
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge J. Gregory Wehrman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and, on June 13, 2018, submitted a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27), recommending that Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied with prejudice, that a certificate of appealability be denied, and that leave to appeal in forma pauperis be denied.
Petitioner asked for, and received, two extensions of time (totaling nearly four months) in which to file his objections to the Report and Recommendation. Ultimately, however, Petitioner did not file an objection. Instead, he filed a motion for certificate of appealability (Doc. 30) and a motion to stay these habeas proceedings in order to file a motion for reconsideration in the Twelfth District Court of Appeals (Doc. 31).
On February 12, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Supplemental Report and Recommendation recommending that both motions be denied, and that the Court adopt the initial Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 33). Once again, Petitioner sought a two-month continuance to file objections. (Doc. 34). While this Court found Petitioner's request for an extension of time well-taken, the Court declined to grant Petitioner an additional two months, given his pattern of requesting lengthy extensions and never filing his objections. (Doc. 35). Accordingly, the Court granted Petitioner's motion in part, giving him an additional two weeks, i.e., until March 20, 2019, to file his objections. (Id.) No objections were filed.
Rather than filing objections, Petitioner wrote a letter directly to the undersigned judge on March 14, 2019, stating that his two-week extension of time was inadequate. However, as this Court explained in its prior Order (Doc. 35), Petitioner has been granted more than adequate time to file objections and to date—more than nine months since the initial Report and Recommendation issued—he has failed to do so. --------
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds that the initial and Supplemental Report and Recommendations should be and are hereby adopted in their entirety.
Accordingly:
1. The initial and Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Docs. 27, 33) are ADOPTED;
2. Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 4), motion for certificate of appealability (Doc. 30), and motion to stay (Doc. 31) are DENIED;
3. Because reasonable jurists would not debate the Court's conclusions, the Court DENIES issuance of a certificate of appealability, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253;
4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court certifies that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, this Court DENIES Petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis; and
5. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice, and the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case shall be TERMINATED on the docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: March 21, 2019
s/ Timothy S . Black
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge