Opinion
Case Number: 1:14cv732
10-16-2015
ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz filed on September 9, 2015 (Doc. 35), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) expired September 28, 2015, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, the petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 (Doc. 15) is DISMISSED with prejudice.
A certificate of appealability will not issue in the absence of a substantial showing that petitioner has started a "viable claim of the denial of a constitutional right" or that the issues presented are "adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." See Slack v McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 475 (2000) (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). Cf Jackson v. Albany Appeal Bureau Unit, 442 F.3d 51, 54 (2 Cir. 2006) (declining to issue a certificate of appealability in an analogous case).
With respect to any application by petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the Court will certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3) that an appeal of any Order adopting the Report and Recommendation will not be taken in "good faith," 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 (6 Cir. 1997).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Susan J. Dlott
Judge Susan J. Dlott
United States District Court