Williams v. Warden Corrections Reception Center, No. 3:2017cv00132 - Document 4 (S.D. Ohio 2017)
Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2 , OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 , AND DISMISSING CASE PURSUANT TO RULE 4 OF THE RULES GOVERNING § 2254 CASES. THE CLERK IS TO TERMINATE THE INSTANT CASE. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 5-9-2017. (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[
Williams v. Warden Corrections Reception Center Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON David A. Williams, Petitioner, Case No. 3:17-cv-132 Judge Thomas M. Rose v. Warden Corrections Reception Center, Respondent. DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, (ECF 2), OVERRULING PETITIONER=S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE=S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, (ECF 3), AND DISMISSING CASE PURSUANT TO RULE 4 OF THE RULES GOVERNING § 2254 CASES. THE CLERK IS TO TERMINATE THE INSTANT CASE. On September 19, 2017, Petitioner David A. Williams filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging the determination of his sentence. (ECF 1.) Magistrate Judge Michael M. Merz performed an initial review pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases determining from the petition and attached exhibits that Petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court. (ECF 2.) On May 1, 2017, Petitioner filed an objection. (ECF 3.) 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 Plaintiff=s objections, (ECF 3), to Report and Recommendations, (ECF 2), are not well taken and they are hereby OVERRULED. Wherefore, Dockets.Justia.com the Court ADOPTS IN FULL the Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendations. (ECF 2.) Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the petition is DISMISSED. Because the resolution of the petition would not be debatable among reasonable jurists, Petitioner is NOT GRANTED A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The clerk is ORDERED to TERMINATE the instant case. DONE and ORDERED this Tuesday, May 9, 2017. s/Thomas M. Rose ________________________________ THOMAS M. ROSE 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.
