Gutierrez v. State Of Ohio, No. 3:2011cv00268 - Document 4 (S.D. Ohio 2011)

Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY - It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendations filed on August 10, 2011 (Doc. 3 ) is ADOPTED in full; 2. Efren Gutierrez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED without prejudice, and Guti errez's next federal habeas petition, if any, shall not be deemed successive under 28 U.S.C. §2244(b); 3. Gutierrez's request for a hearing is DENIED as moot; 4. A certificate of appealability not issue under 28 U.S.C. §2253; and 5. The case is terminated on the docket of the Court.Walter. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 08/30/2011. (kf)

Download PDF
IN THE lJNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOlJTHERN DISTRICT OF omo WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON EFREN GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, vs. Case No.3: 11 cv00268 District Judge Walter Herbert Rice Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington STATE OF OHIO, Respondent. DECISION AND ENTRY The Court has conducted a de novo review· of the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington (Doc. #3), to whom this case was originally referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b),.and noting that Plaintiff has filed a Notice (Doc. #24) informing the Court that she does not object to the Report and Recommendations, and further noting that the time for any party to file objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendations filed on August 10,2011 (Doc. #3) is ADOPTED in full; 2. Efren Gutierrez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED without prejudice, and Gutierrez's next federal habeas petition, if any, shall not be deemedrsuccessive under 28 U.S.C. §2244(b); 3. Gutierrez's request for a hearing is DENIED as moot; 4. A certificate of appealability not isslle under 28 U.S.C. §2253; and 5. The case is terminated on the docket of the Court. Walter Herbert Rice 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.