Warr v. Adducci

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Warr v. Adducci

Trial Court Opinion

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

Aliou Yero Warr, : Petitioner(s), : Case Number: 1:19cv218 vs. : : Judge Susan J. Dlott Field Office Director, : Respondent(s). : ORDER The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman filed on April 9, 2020 (Doc. 13), to whom this case was referred pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §636

(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) expired April 23, 2020, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §2241

(Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice as moot. A certificate of appealability will not issue under the standard set forth in Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484-85

(2000), because of “jurists of reason” will not find it debatable whether this Court is correct in its procedural ruling that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. See e.g. Wunderich v. City of Flushing, No. 14cv1426,

2014 WL 7433411

, at *3 (E.E. Mich. Dec. 31, 2014) (applying Slack to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). The Court certifies pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §1915

(a)(3) that with respect to any application by petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, an appeal of any Order adopting the Report

and Recommendation will not be taken in “good faith.” Therefore, petitioner is DENIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); Kincade v. Sparkman,

117 F.3d 949, 952

(6" Cir. 1997). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Aton United States District Court

Reference

Status
Unknown