IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI CHAD COPELAND, : Case No. 1:22-cv-209 : Consolidated with Case No. 1:22-cv-218 Petitioner, : and Case No. 1:22-cv-238 v. Judge Matthew W. McFarland TIM SHOOP, WARDEN, Respondent.

ENTRY AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 13)

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers (Doc. 13), to whom these consolidated cases

are referred pursuant to

(b). Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, sought a writ of habeas corpus under

in each of these three consolidated cases. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court dismiss with prejudice the First Petition, Second Petition, and Third Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as time-barred under

(d)(1). Additionally, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny Petitioner’s motions to file or proceed in each

case, as well as his motion for bond in case number 1:22-cv-209. Lastly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability. Petitioner subsequently filed his Objection to the Report (Doc. 14). Petitioner raises one objection to the Report. Petitioner singularly argues that, while the actions filed do not fall within the required statutory time limits under

(d)(1), they may nonetheless be brought forward under the “actual innocence” exception. However, the “actual innocence” exception may only be employed when a petitioner “support[s] his allegations of constitutional error with new reliable evidence .

. . that was not presented at trial.” Schlup v. Delo,

(1995). In his Objection, Petitioner fails to cite to any new evidence to show that “no reasonable juror would have convicted [Petitioner.]” McQuiggin v. Perkins,

(2013) (citing Schlup, 513 at 329). Plaintiff fails to show that “it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in the light of [] new evidence.” Schlup, 513 US. at 327. In fact, a majority of Petitioner’s Objection simply rehashes the arguments presented in his initial Petitions—that the evidence and jury instructions presented at the original trial were “insufficient.” (Objections, Doc. 14, Pg. ID 138.) Petitioner additionally points to a copy of the transcript of his 2007 resentencing hearing, at which he proclaimed his innocence. However, this comment can hardly constitute “new evidence” and, acting alone, is otherwise insufficient to show that “no reasonable juror would have convicted him.” Schlup,

. Thus, the “actual innocence” exception is not applicable and Petitioner’s three Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus are time-barred. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) in its entirety and ORDERS the following: (1) The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Petitioner’s First Petition, Second Petition, and Third Petition as time-barred under

(d)(1); (2) The Court DENIES Petitioner’s motions to file or proceed in each case;

(3) The Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for bond in case number 1:22-cv-209; and (4) The Court CERTIFIES pursuant to

(a)(3) that, for the reasons discussed above, an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith, and therefore, deny Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth,

(6th Cir. 1997). IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO W. 4 By: JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND