Valerio v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Valerio v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution

Trial Court Opinion

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

Craig D. Valerio, : Petitioner(s), : Case Number: 1:18cv823 VS. : : Judge Susan J. Dlott Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution, : Respondent(s). : ORDER This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge revicwed the pleadings and filed with this Court on August 5, 2019 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5). Subsequently, the plaintiff filed objections to such Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6). The Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does determine that such Recommendations should be adopted. Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 4) is GRANTED and petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §2254

(Doc. 5) is DISMISSED without prejudice. A certificate of appealability will not issue with respect to the petition since petitioner has

not stated a “viable claim of the denial of a constitutional right” or presented issucs that are “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” See Slack, 529 U.S. at 475 (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). With respect to any application by petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the Court will certify pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §1915

(a)(3) that an appeal of an Order adopting the Report and Recommendation will not be taken in “good faith,” therefore petitioner is DENIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis upon showing of financial necessity. See Fed. R. App.P. 24(a); Kincade v. Sparkman,

117 F.3d 949

, 952 Cir. 1997), IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court

Reference

Status
Unknown