Kelley v. Warden
Petitioner: John Kelley
Respondent: Warden, Lebanon Correctional Insititution
Case Number: 1:2016cv00274
Filed: January 29, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Cincinnati Office
County: WARREN
Presiding Judge: Susan J. Dlott
Presiding Judge: Karen L. Litkovitz
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 24, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER ADOPTING 27 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS : The Court has reviewed the Supplemental Report andRecommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz, hereby ADOPTS said Supplemental Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition be DISMISSED with prejudice. Petitioner is DENIED any requested certificate of appealability and the Court hereby certifies to the United States Court of Appeals that an appeal would be objectively frivolous and therefore should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 8/24/2017. (jlw) (Main Document 28 replaced on 8/24/2017) (jlw).
August 8, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 27 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Having reviewed the Report in light of the Objections, the Magistrate Judge concludes Kelley should not be held to have procedurally defaulted any claim on the basis of Mr. Bennett's failure to file a nd the recommendations in the Report to the contrary have been withdrawn. However, even with that withdrawal, Kelley is not entitled to habeas corpus relief and it is again respectfully recommended that his Petition be dismissed with prejudice. Aft er de novo review of both this and the original Report, the District Court should enter judgment to that effect. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Petitioner should be denied a certificate of appealability and t he Court should certify to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be objectively frivolous and therefore should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 8/22/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 8/8/2017. (kpf)
June 5, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - It is respectfully recommended that the Petition herein be dismissed with prejudice. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Petitioner should be denied a certificate of appealability and the Court should certify to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be objectively frivolous and therefore should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 6/19/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 6/5/2017. (kpf)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Kelley v. Warden
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: John Kelley
Represented By: William Richard Gallagher
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Warden, Lebanon Correctional Insititution
Represented By: Hilda Rosenberg
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?