Brackenridge v. The State of Ohio

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

WESTERN DIVISION Joshua Brackenridge, :

Case Number 1:20cv956 Petitioner, :

v. : Judge Susan J. Diott State of Ohio,

Respondent. :

ORDER The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Karen Litkovitz filed on December 3, 2020, (Doc. 2) to whom this case was referred to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b). Subsequently, the respondent filed objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doe. 3).

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 Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, petitioner’s pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling after petitioner has exhausted all available state court remedies.

A certificate of appealability will not issue because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right that is remediable at this juncture in this proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c ); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

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 “oood faith.” Therefore, petitioner is DENIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Fed. R. App.P. 24(a); Kincade vy. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952 (6'" Cir. 1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CYGUW Susan J. Dlott

United States District Judge