Palmer v. Kelly, No. 1:2009cv01881 - Document 13 (N.D. Ohio 2010)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order re 12 adopting the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court denies the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc no. 1). Pursuant to 28 USC 1915(a) and 2253(c), this Courtcertifies that an appeal from this action could not be taken in good faith and that Petitioner has failed to make a subtantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, this Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Judge Jack Zouhary on 8/3/10. (B,CJ)

Download PDF
Palmer v. Kelly Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Ricky Palmer, Case No. 1:09 CV 1881 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER -vsJUDGE JACK ZOUHARY Bennie Kelley, Respondent. Petitioner Ricky Palmer, a prisoner in state custody, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1). The case was referred to Magistrate Judge William Baughman for a Report and Recommendation (R&R) pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). The Magistrate Judge filed the R&R on July 7, 2010 (Doc. No. 12). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C): Within ten days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. The ten-day period has elapsed and no objections have been filed. The failure to file written objections constitutes a waiver of a de novo determination by the district court of an issue covered in the report. United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (2005). Dockets.Justia.com The Court has reviewed the R&R, and having found it legally and factually accurate, adopts the R&R in its entirety. Therefore, the Court denies the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1). Further, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a) and 2253(c), this Court certifies that an appeal of this action could not be taken in good faith and that Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, this Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Jack Zouhary JACK ZOUHARY U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE August 3, 2010 2

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.