Morris v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institute, No. 2:2020cv01803 - Document 27 (S.D. Ohio 2022)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER ADOPTING and AFFIRMING the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 23 in that the Court DENIES the Petition, DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE, and ORDERS that no certificate of appealability issue because reasonable jurists would not debate whether Petitioners claims are procedurally defaulted. Signed by Judge Sarah D. Morrison on 8/1/22. (sem)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Morris v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institute Doc. 27 Case: 2:20-cv-01803-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 27 Filed: 08/01/22 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 341 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Michael T. Morris, Petitioner, : - vs - Case No. 2:20-cv-1803 Judge Sarah D. Morrison Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson Warden, Noble Correctional Institution, : Respondent. OPINION AND ORDER The Magistrate Judge’s detailed December 17, 2021 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 23) recommended that: (1) the Petition be denied and the action be dismissed with prejudice because Petitioner’s habeas claims were procedurally defaulted and (2) no certificate of appealability issue as to any of Petitioner’s claims of relief. Petitioner timely objects. (ECF No. 26.) “A litigant who objects to a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation on a dispositive matter is entitled to a de novo review by a District Judge of all substantial objections.” Armengau v. Warden, No. 2:19-cv-1146, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25652, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2022) (Merz, M.J.). Petitioner argues that his guilty plea was entered under duress such that this is an extraordinary habeas corpus case sufficient to overcome the procedural bar to review. (ECF No. 26.) Upon de novo review, the Court OVERRULES the objection. (ECF No. 26.) The R&R correctly provides that Petitioner must produce reliable evidence of actual innocence to overcome the procedural bar to review. (ECF No. 23, PageID 328-29.) The Objection does not do so, instead focusing solely on the Dockets.Justia.com Case: 2:20-cv-01803-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 27 Filed: 08/01/22 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 342 validity of his plea agreement. (ECF No. 26.) The Court therefore ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 23) in full, DENIES the Petition, DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE, and ORDERS that no certificate of appealability issue because reasonable jurists would not debate whether Petitioner’s claims are procedurally defaulted. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Sarah D. Morrison SARAH D. MORRISON 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.
