Javon Lyons v. Warden, Toledo Correctional Institution

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS JAVON LYONS, : Case No. 2:23-cv-3532 : Petitioner, : : Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison vs. : Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz : WARDEN, TOLEDO : CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION : : Respondent. : REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. (Doc. 32).

On January 16, 2026, a final Order and Judgment were entered in this case adopting the United States Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (See Docs. 29, 30). In the final Order, the Court denied a certificate of appealability and certified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in “good faith.” (See Doc. 29). For the reasons previously given by the Court in the final Order (Doc. 29), petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 32) should be DENIED. Petitioner remains free, however, to request in forma pauperis status on appeal and the issuance of a certificate of appealability from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting authority for the objection(s). A judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection 1s made. Upon proper objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence, or may recommit this matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the district judge review the Report and Recommendation de novo and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

IT ISSO RECOMMENDED.

Date: February 18, ° Karen L. Litkovitz UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE