McBroom v. Warden Madison Correctional Institution, No. 3:2016cv00514 - Document 14 (S.D. Ohio 2017)
Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 , OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 , GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS HABEAS PETITION AS TIME-BARRED 8 , AND TERMINATINGTHE INSTANT CASE. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 5-4-2017. (de)(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[
McBroom v. Warden Madison Correctional Institution Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON Leonard McBroom, Petitioner, Case No. 3:16-cv-514 Judge Thomas M. Rose v. Warden Madison Correctional Institution, Respondent. DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, (DOC. 11), OVERRULING PETITIONER=S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE=S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, (DOC. 12), GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS HABEAS PETITION AS TIME-BARRED, (DOC. 8), AND TERMINATING THE INSTANT CASE. On December 27, 2016, Petitioner Leonard McBroom filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, attacking the Ohio Parole Authority’s delay in “not finalizing revocation process within [a] reasonable time period as mandated by Ohio Revised Code § 2967.15(B) and Morrissey v. Brewer [408 U.S. 471 (1972)]” (ECF 3, PageID 29). Respondent Warden Madison Correctional Institution filed a Motion to Dismiss Habeas Petition as Time-Barred. (ECF 8.) In his Response to the Motion, Petitioner makes it clear that he is attacking the “subject-matter jurisdiction of the Ohio Adult Parole Authority to continue to incarcerate him.” (ECF 10, PageID 161.) On March 21, 2016, Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz filed Report and Recommendations, (Doc. 11), suggesting that the Court grant Respondent’s Motion to Vacate, and deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. (Id.) Petitioner has filed an Objection to Dockets.Justia.com Report and Recommendations. (ECF 12). As required by 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case, taking into consideration Petitioner’s objections. Upon said review, the Court finds that Petitioner=s objection, (ECF 12), to Report and Recommendations, (ECF 11), is not well taken and is hereby OVERRULED. Wherefore, the Court ADOPTS IN FULL the Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendations. (ECF 11). Motion to Dismiss Habeas Petition as Time-Barred, (ECF 8), is hereby DENIED. Because the resolution of Petitioner’s motion would not be debatable among reasonable jurists, Petitioner is DENIED A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. DONE and ORDERED this Thursday, May 4, 2017. s/Thomas M. Rose ________________________________ THOMAS M. ROSE 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.
