Chibinda v. Columbus Field Office Director (ICE)

S.D. Ohio

Chibinda v. Columbus Field Office Director (ICE)

DecidedJanuary 2, 2020

Docket1:18-cv-00780

StatusUnknown

This text of Chibinda v. Columbus Field Office Director (ICE) (Chibinda v. Columbus Field Office Director (ICE)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chibinda v. Columbus Field Office Director (ICE), (S.D. Ohio 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Peter Chibinda, et al., : Petitioner(s), : Case Number: 1:18cv780 vs. : : Judge Susan J. Diott Attorney General, et al., : Respondent(s). ORDER This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on November 7, 2019 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16). Subsequently, the plaintiff filed objections to such Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) and the respondents’ filed a response to the objections (18). 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 does determine that such Recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, respondents’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED and this actions is DISMISSED without prejudice. A certificate of appealability will not issue under the standard set forth in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000), because “jurists of reason” will not find it debatable whether the Court is correct in its procedural ruling that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See

e.g. Wunderlich v. City of Flushing, No. 14cv14626, 2014 WL 7433411, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 31, 2014) (applying Slack to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3) that with respect to any application by petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, an appeal of any Order adopting the Report and Recommendation will not be taken in “good faith,”. Therefore, petitioner is DENIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952 (6" Cir. 1997). The case is hereby TERMINATED from the docket of this Court. IT IS SO ORDERED.

tetaw, 9. Tlie Judge Susan J. Mott United States District Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Peter Chibinda, et al., : Petitioner(s), : Case Number: 1:18cv780 vs. : : Judge Susan J. Diott Attorney General, et al., : Respondent(s). ORDER This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on November 7, 2019 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16). Subsequently, the plaintiff filed objections to such Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) and the respondents’ filed a response to the objections (18). 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 does determine that such Recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, respondents’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED and this actions is DISMISSED without prejudice. A certificate of appealability will not issue under the standard set forth in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000), because “jurists of reason” will not find it debatable whether the Court is correct in its procedural ruling that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See

e.g. Wunderlich v. City of Flushing, No. 14cv14626, 2014 WL 7433411, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 31, 2014) (applying Slack to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3) that with respect to any application by petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, an appeal of any Order adopting the Report and Recommendation will not be taken in “good faith,”. Therefore, petitioner is DENIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952 (6" Cir. 1997). The case is hereby TERMINATED from the docket of this Court. IT IS SO ORDERED.

tetaw, 9. Tlie Judge Susan J. Mott United States District Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Chibinda v. Columbus Field Office Director (ICE), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chibinda-v-columbus-field-office-director-ice-ohsd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack