Gazaway v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institution

S.D. Ohio

Gazaway v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institution

DecidedMay 31, 2022

Docket1:20-cv-01024

StatusUnknown

This text of Gazaway v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institution (Gazaway v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institution) 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

Gazaway v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institution, (S.D. Ohio 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI DONALD T. GAZAWAY, : Case No. 1:20-cv-1024 Petitioner, 2 Judge Matthew W. McFarland

v WARDEN, NOBLE CORRECTIONS INSTITUTION, Respondent.

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOC. 17) AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 15)

This action is before the Court on Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 17) to Magistrate Judge Bowman’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. 15). Magistrate Judge Bowman recommends that the Court deny Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) with prejudice. (Doc. 15.) Petitioner objected to Magistrate Bowman’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. 17.) This matter is now ripe for the Court's review. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court finds that Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 17) are not well-taken and are accordingly OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 15) in its entirety. Thus, the Court ORDERS the following: 1. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is DENIED with prejudice.

2. A certification of appealability should not issue with respect to the petition because Petitioner has not stated a “viable claim of the denial of the constitutional right” or presented an issue that is “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). 3. With respect to any application by Petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, it is hereby certified that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in “good faith” and therefore Petitioner is DENIED 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). IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Heat woe dO D By: JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND

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 AT CINCINNATI DONALD T. GAZAWAY, : Case No. 1:20-cv-1024 Petitioner, 2 Judge Matthew W. McFarland

v WARDEN, NOBLE CORRECTIONS INSTITUTION, Respondent.

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOC. 17) AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 15)

This action is before the Court on Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 17) to Magistrate Judge Bowman’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. 15). Magistrate Judge Bowman recommends that the Court deny Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) with prejudice. (Doc. 15.) Petitioner objected to Magistrate Bowman’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. 17.) This matter is now ripe for the Court's review. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court finds that Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 17) are not well-taken and are accordingly OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 15) in its entirety. Thus, the Court ORDERS the following: 1. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is DENIED with prejudice.

2. A certification of appealability should not issue with respect to the petition because Petitioner has not stated a “viable claim of the denial of the constitutional right” or presented an issue that is “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). 3. With respect to any application by Petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, it is hereby certified that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in “good faith” and therefore Petitioner is DENIED 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). IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Heat woe dO D By: JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gazaway v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institution, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gazaway-v-warden-noble-correctional-institution-ohsd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack