McCrae v. Warden, London Correctional Institution, No. 2:2018cv01211 - Document 6 (S.D. Ohio 2018)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER adopting and affirming 2 the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 11/7/18. (jk) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF

McCrae v. Warden, London Correctional Institution Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Twan McCrae, Petitioner, V. Warden, London Correctional Institution, Case No. 2:18-cv-1211 Judge Michael H. Watson Magistrate Judge Deavers Respondent. OPINiON AND ORDER On October 12,2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases recommending that the Petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed because both the Petition was unsigned and Petitioner failed to present any federal claim warranting relief. EOF No. 2. On October 16, 2018, Petitioner re- submltted a Petition which he signed under penalty of perjury In compliance with Rule 2(c)(5) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. ECF No. 4. Petitioner also has filed an Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, requesting the Court to accept the signed copy of the Petition. ECF No. 5. Petitioner does not otherwise object to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation of dismissal of his claims on the grounds that they simply do not provide a basis for relief. Therefore, although the Court accepts Petitioner's filing of a signed Petition, for the reasons addressed by the Magistrate Judge, the signed Petition does not assist him In obtaining the relief he seeks. Dockets.Justia.com Petitioner does not raise any other objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R other than as it relates to the signed petition; thus, he has waived further review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Accordingly, Petitioner's Objection to the dismissal of this action, EOF No. 5, is OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation, EOF No. 2, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This action is hereby DISMISSED. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, the Court now considers whether to issue a certificate of appealability. See 26 U.S.C. § 2255(d). When a claim has been denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may be issued only if the petitioner "has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a petitioner must show "that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were 'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" S/ack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893, n. 4 (1983)). When a claim has been denied on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability may be issued if the petitioner establishes that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and Case No. 2:18-cv-1211 Page 2 of 3 that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Id. Upon review of the record, this Court is not persuaded that reasonable jurists could debate whether Petitioner's claims should have been resolved differently or that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether this Court was correct in its procedural rulings. Therefore, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appeaiabiiity. The Court further certifies that the appeal would not be in good faith and that an application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal should be DENIED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter final JUDGMENT. IT IS SO ORDERED. ICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case No. 2:18-cv-1211 Page 3 of 3

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.