From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

King v. Buchanan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Apr 21, 2021
CASE NO. 1:19 CV 2159 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 21, 2021)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:19 CV 2159

04-21-2021

JERMAINE KING, Petitioner, v. WARDEN TIM BUCHANAN, Respondent.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of former Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp II. The Report and Recommendation (ECF # 9), filed on October 13, 2020, is ADOPTED by this Court, and Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF # 1), filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is denied.

Following the issuance of this Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Knepp was appointed to, confirmed and sworn in as a district judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division. --------

Pursuant to Local Rule 72.2, this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Knepp for the preparation of a report and recommendation. In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Knepp recommends that this Court deny Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. On April 19, 2021, after several requests for extensions of time, Petitioner filed his objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF # 16.)

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Moreover, it has considered all of the pleadings, affidavits, motions, and filings of the parties. Despite Petitioner's assertions to the contrary, the Court finds Magistrate Judge Knepp's Report and Recommendation to be well-written, well-supported, and correct. As such, the Court finds Petitioner's objections to the Report and Recommendation to be lacking in merit and are overruled. Therefore, the Report and Recommendation (ECF # 9) is ADOPTED in its entirety and Petitioner's Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. Furthermore, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); FED. R. APP. P. 22(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/_________

DONALD C. NUGENT

United States District Judge DATED: April 21, 2021


Summaries of

King v. Buchanan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Apr 21, 2021
CASE NO. 1:19 CV 2159 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 21, 2021)
Case details for

King v. Buchanan

Case Details

Full title:JERMAINE KING, Petitioner, v. WARDEN TIM BUCHANAN, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Apr 21, 2021

Citations

CASE NO. 1:19 CV 2159 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 21, 2021)

Citing Cases

Mason v. Wainwright

. . 1:19 CV 2159, 2020 WL 9259698, at *11 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 13, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No.…

Feathers v. Foley

Moreover, the underlying issue - the state court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea - is a…