Brown v. Warden, London Correctional Institution ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON CHRISTOPHER D. BROWN, Petitioner, Case No. 3:23-cv-305 vs. WARDEN, London Correctional District Judge Michael J. Newman Institution, Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz Respondent. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER: (1) OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. No. 15) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 12); (3) DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. No. 3); (3) DENYING ANY REQUESTED CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; (4) CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER WOULD BE OBJECTIVELY FRIVOLOUS AND FINDING THAT PETITIONER SHOULD BE DENIED IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL; (5) AND TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE DOCKET ______________________________________________________________________________ Petitioner Christopher D. Brown brings this case pro se seeking a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Doc. No. 3. The case is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz (Doc. No. 12), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Judge Merz recommends that this Court dismiss the petition with prejudice. Doc. No. 8 at PageID 607. Petitioner timely filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Doc. No. 15. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has reviewed Judge Merz’s comprehensive findings and considered de novo all filings in this matter, including Petitioner’s objections. 1 The Court liberally construes Petitioner’s pro se filings in his favor. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); see also Mayes v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst., No. 3:22-cv-313, 2024 WL 3163957, at *1 (S.D. Ohio June 25, 2024). Upon careful de novo review of the foregoing, the Court determines that the Judge Merz’s Report and Recommendation applies the correct law, is well reasoned, and should be ADOPTED. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Objections are OVERRULED, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED, and the Petition is DISMISSED. Petitioner is DENIED any requested certificate of appealability, and the Court hereby CERTIFIES to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that an appeal of this Order would be objectively frivolous and, therefore, Petitioner should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. IT IS SO ORDERED. November 8, 2024 s/Michael J. Newman Hon. Michael J. Newman United States District Judge