Peeples v. Trump

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Kavin Lee Peeples,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 1:20cv299

Donald Trump, Judge Michael R. Barrett

Respondent.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed by the Magistrate Judge on April 24, 2020 (Doc. 3). Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the R&R in a timely manner. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge=s R&R (Doc. 3) have been filed. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 3) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus Compelling Presidential Action (Doc. 2) is DISMISSED without prejudice because the Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of showing that any extraordinary remedies are warranted in this case. A certificate of appealability will not issue because petitioner has not stated a “viable claim of the denial of a constitutional right,” nor are the issues presented “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” See Slack v. McDaniel, 529

1 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). The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that for the reasons expressed in the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 3), an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); Kinkade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 1997). IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Michael R. Barrett Michael R. Barrett, Judge United States District Court