Patrick v. Bunting, No. 1:2015cv00628 - Document 16 (N.D. Ohio 2016)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 13 and dismissing 1 petition with prejudice. Petitioner's objections 15 are overruled. Petitioner's Motion for a Stay 9 is denied; Respondent's Motion to Strike Supplemental Grounds for Relief 10 is granted; Petionioner's Motion for Leave to Amend and Supplement Pleadings 12 is denied; and Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Petition as time barred 6 is granted. Furthermore, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28:1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. Judge Donald C. Nugent 3/16/16(C,KA)

Download PDF
Patrick v. Bunting Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ALONZO RAYMONT PATRICK, Petitioner, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) JASON BUNTING, Warden, Respondent. CASE NO. 1: 15 CV 628 JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert. The Report and Recommendation (ECF # 13), filed on December 29, 2015, is ADOPTED by this Court, and Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF # 1), filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Pursuant to Local Rule 72.2, this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Limbert for the preparation of a report and recommendation. In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Limbert recommends that this Court deny Petitioner’s request for a Stay (ECF #9); grant Respondent’s motion to strike (ECF #10); deny Petitioner’s motion for leave to amend and supplement his pleadings for relief (ECF #12); and grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss Petitioner’s Petition as untimely; and, dismiss the Petition in its entirety, with prejudice. On March 7, 2016, Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF # 15.) The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Moreover, it has considered all of the pleadings, affidavits, motions, and filings of the parties. Despite Petitioner’s assertions to the contrary, the Court finds Magistrate Judge Limbert’s Report and Recommendation to be well-written, well-supported, and correct. Dockets.Justia.com As such, the Court finds Petitioner’s objections to the Report and Recommendation to be lacking in merit and are overruled. Therefore, the Report and Recommendation (ECF # 13) is ADOPTED in its entirety, Petitioner’s Motion for a Stay (ECF #9) is denied; Respondent’s Motion to Strike Supplemental Grounds for Relief (ECF # 10) is Granted; Petionioner’s Motion for Leave to Amend and Supplement Pleadings (ECF #12) is denied; and Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition as time barred (ECF #6) is granted. the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (ECF # 1), Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Furthermore, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); FED. R. APP. P. 22(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. _/s/Donald C. Nugent___ DONALD C. NUGENT United States District Judge DATED:__March 16, 2016__

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.