Murrill v. Warden, London Correctional Institution

Opinion

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

MICKEY MURRILL, : Case No. 1:21-cv-592 : Petitioner, : Judge Matthew W. McFarland : Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz v. : : WARDEN, LONDON CORRECTIONAL : INSTITUTION, : : Respondent. : ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 18) AND TERMINATING CASE ______________________________________________________________________________ This action is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Karen Litkovitz’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18). This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Litkovitz pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). She recommends that the petition be dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner has filed objections. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, OVERRULES the objections, and ORDERS as follows: (1) The habeas petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for the reasons stated in the Report. (2) A certificate of appealability should not issue with respect to any of the claims for relief alleged in the petition, because “jurists of reason” would not disagree that the petition is barred from review on a procedural ground. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). (3) The Court CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that, for the reasons expressed in the Report, an appeal of this Order adopting the Report would not be taken in good faith, and therefore DENIES plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 203 (2007). Plaintiff remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999). (4) This matter is TERMINATED from the Court’s docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO By me WH A ah JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND