Dillard v. Warden Warren Correctional Institution, No. 1:2013cv00882 - Document 16 (S.D. Ohio 2015)

Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 14 ). Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 1/20/2015. (mr1)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
Dillard v. Warden Warren Correctional Institution Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION ANTWAN DILLARD, Petitioner, vs. WARDEN, LONDON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION Respondent. : : : : : : : : : : Case No. 1:13-cv-882 Judge Timothy S. Black Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 14) This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on December 19, 2014, submitted a Report and Recommendations (Doc. 14). No objections were filed. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), 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 Report and Recommendations should be and is hereby adopted in its entirety. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Accordingly: 1. The Report and Recommendations (Doc. 14) is ADOPTED; 2. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED with prejudice; 3. A certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 is DENIED; and 4. An application to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 1/20/15 s/ Timothy S. Black Timothy S. Black United States District Judge 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.