Stokes v. Warden, Southeastern Correctional

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

NAJA A. STOKES,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 2:22-cv-03921

JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.

WARDEN, SOUTHEASTERN

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent.

ORDER On October 20, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that pro se Petitioner Naja A. Stokes’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied, and this action be dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 14.) Although the parties were advised of the right to object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and of the consequences of failing to do so (id. PageID 891–92), no objections have been filed. The Report and Recommendation therefore is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. (ECF No. 14.) This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Petitioner has waived the right to appeal by failing to file objections. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Nor has the Petitioner stated a “viable claim or denial of a 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). The Court therefore DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. As for any application by Petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the Court certifies that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in “good faith,” and therefore DENIES Petitioner 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).

The Clerk is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT and CLOSE the case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

1/4/2024 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE