Smith v. Warden, Dayton Correctional Institution

S.D. Ohio

Smith v. Warden, Dayton Correctional Institution

DecidedJune 30, 2023

Docket1:22-cv-00233

StatusUnknown

This text of Smith v. Warden, Dayton Correctional Institution (Smith v. Warden, Dayton 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

Smith v. Warden, Dayton Correctional Institution, (S.D. Ohio 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI TIFFANY SMITH, : Case No. 1:22-cv-233 Petitioner, : Judge Matthew W. McFarland : Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz v. : WARDEN, Dayton Correctional Institution, : Respondent. :

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 19), and TERMINATING CASE

This action is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. 19). This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Merz pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Magistrate Judge Merz recommends dismissing the petition with prejudice. Petitioner objects generally. But her objections simply negate the report’s conclusions without providing specific reasons she thinks they are wrong. Such objections have the same effect as a failure to object. Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). 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 such review, the Court finds that Petitioner’s objections fail to identify any error and are accordingly OVERRULED. Thus, the Court ORDERS as follows:

(1) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 19) in its entirety. (2) The habeas petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for the reasons stated in the Report. (3) Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability, because “jurists of reason” would not disagree with this conclusion. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484- 85 (2000). (4) 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 be objectively frivolous, 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). (5) This matter is TERMINATED from the Court’s docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO pat As fee 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 TIFFANY SMITH, : Case No. 1:22-cv-233 Petitioner, : Judge Matthew W. McFarland : Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz v. : WARDEN, Dayton Correctional Institution, : Respondent. :

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 19), and TERMINATING CASE

This action is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. 19). This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Merz pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Magistrate Judge Merz recommends dismissing the petition with prejudice. Petitioner objects generally. But her objections simply negate the report’s conclusions without providing specific reasons she thinks they are wrong. Such objections have the same effect as a failure to object. Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). 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 such review, the Court finds that Petitioner’s objections fail to identify any error and are accordingly OVERRULED. Thus, the Court ORDERS as follows:

(1) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 19) in its entirety. (2) The habeas petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for the reasons stated in the Report. (3) Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability, because “jurists of reason” would not disagree with this conclusion. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484- 85 (2000). (4) 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 be objectively frivolous, 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). (5) This matter is TERMINATED from the Court’s docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO pat As fee By: ‘ ; JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Smith v. Warden, Dayton Correctional Institution, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-warden-dayton-correctional-institution-ohsd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack