Kidd-Littlebird v. Hamilton County, No. 1:2016cv01151 - Document 5 (S.D. Ohio 2017)

Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING 3 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Petitioner's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 4) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A certificate of appealability shall not issue with respect to any of th e grounds for relief alleged in the petition. The Court certifies that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore Petitioner is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 5/3/17. (gs)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
Download PDF
Kidd-Littlebird v. Hamilton County Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION ROY-EDWARD KIDD-LITTLEBIRD, Petitioner, vs. HAMLTON COUNTY, Respondent. : : : : : : : : : Case No. 1:16-cv-1151 Judge Timothy S. Black Magistrate Judge J. Gregory Wehrman DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 3) 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 J. Gregory Wehrman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on January 27, 2017, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 3). 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. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1) Petitioner’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 4) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 1 Dockets.Justia.com 2) A certificate of appealability shall not issue with respect to any of the grounds for relief alleged in the petition because petitioner has not stated a "viable claim of the denial of a constitutional right," nor are the issues presented "adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 475 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); 3) The Court certifies that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore Petitioner is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 5/3/17 Timothy S. Black United States District Judge 2