Easterling v. Second District Court of Appeals, Greene County, No. 3:2013cv00106 - Document 25 (S.D. Ohio 2013)
Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Docs. 19 , 23 ); (2) OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS (Docs. 21 , 24 ); AND (3) DENYING PETITIONER PAUPER STAUTUS ON APPEAL AND CERITIFYING THAT APPEAL WOULD BE OBJECTIVELY FRIVOLOUS. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 10/18/2013. (mr1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION WARREN EASTERLING, Petitioner, vs. SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent. : : : : : : : : : Case No. 3:13-cv-106 Judge Timothy S. Black Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Docs. 19, 23); (2) OVERRULING PETITIONER S OBJECTIONS (Docs. 21, 24); AND (3) DENYING PETITIONER PAUPER STAUTUS ON APPEAL AND CERITIFYING THAT APPEAL WOULD BE OBJECTIVELY FRIVOLOUS This civil case is before the Court on the Reports and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz. (Doc. 19, 23). The Magistrate Judge recommends that Petitioner be denied pauper status on appeal and that the Court certify that an appeal would be objectively frivolous. (Id.) Petitioner filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge s recommendations. (Docs. 21, 24). The issues are now ripe for decision by the Court. As required by 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge in his Report and Recommendations de novo. Upon review of the issues presented, the Court: (1) ADOPTS the Reports and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge in their entirety (Docs. 19, 21); (2) OVERRULES Petitioner s Objections (Docs. 21, 24); and (3) DENIES Petitioner pauper status on appeal and CERTIFIES than an appeal would be objectively frivolous. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 10/18/13 /s/ Timothy S. Black Timothy S. Black United States District Judge
]]>
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.
