Coots v. Warden London Correctional Insitution, No. 3:2015cv00216 - Document 9 (S.D. Ohio 2015)

Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS {DOC. # 8 ); DISMISSING PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS {DOC. # 3 ) WITH PREJUDICE; JUDGMENT TO ENTER IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT AND AGAINST PETITIONER; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS; TERMINATION ENTRY - Based on the reasoning and citations of authority set forth by Magistrate Judge Merz, in his October 22, 2015, Report and Recommen dations, Doc. # 8 , as well as upon a thorough de novo review of this Court's file and the applicable law, this Court ADOPTS said judicial filing in its entirety. Although Petitioner was informed of his right to file Objections to the Report a nd Recommendations, and ofthe consequences of failing to do so, no Objections have been filed within the time allotted. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. # 3 , is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, because Petitioner procedurally defaulted on a ll of his grounds for relief. Given that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and, further, that the Court's decision herein would not be debatable among reasonable jurists, and because any appeal from this Court's decision would be objectively frivolous, Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability, and is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Judgment will be entered in favor of Respondent and against Petitioner. The capti oned case is hereby ordered terminated upon the docket records of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, at Dayton.. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 11/19/2015. (srb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
Coots v. Warden London Correctional Insitution Doc. 9 Dockets.Justia.com

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.