UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Daniel G. Payton,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 1:19cv657

Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution, 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 June 17, 2020 (Doc. 11). 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,

(6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge=s R&R (Doc. 11) have been filed. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 11) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge, respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) is GRANTED and the petition (Doc. 3) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE on the ground that the petition is time-barred under

(d). A certificate of appealability will not issue with respect to any of the claims for relief alleged in the petition, which this Court has concluded are barred from review on a procedural ground, because under the first prong of the applicable two-part standard

1 enunciated in Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000), “jurists of reason” would not find it debatable whether the Court is correct in its procedural ruling.1 Lastly, with respect to any application by petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to

(a)(3), that an

appeal of this Order would not be taken in “good faith” and, therefore, DENIES petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); Kincade v. Sparkman,

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

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

1 Because the first prong of the Slack test has not been met, the Court need not address the second prong of Slack as to whether “jurists of reason” would find it debatable whether petitioner has stated a viable constitutional claim in his time-barred grounds for relief. See Slack,

.

2