Malone v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution

Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Ohio Southern District Malone v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution

Malone v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution

Petitioner:	Michael Malone
Respondent:	Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Case Number:	1:2016cv01160
Filed:	December 21, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office:	Cincinnati Office
County:	HAMILTON
Presiding Judge:	Stephanie K. Bowman
Presiding Judge:	Susan J. Dlott
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
March 12, 2018	Filing 9 ORDER ADOPTING 8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Accordingly, respondents motion to dismiss (Doc. 5) is GRANTED. The petition for awrit of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice onthe ground that the petition is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. §2246(d).. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 3/12/2018. (jlw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
February 6, 2018	Filing 8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 5 Respondent's to Dismiss, 7 Petitioner's Motion for Certificate of Appealability. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT: (1) Respondents motion to dismiss 5 be GRANTED, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus purs uant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 1 be DISMISSED with prejudice on the ground that the petition is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d); (2) A certificate of appealability should not issue with respect to any of the claims for relief alleged in t he petition, and accordingly, Petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability 7 should be DENIED; (3) With respect to any application by petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the Court should certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. & #167; 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in "good faith," and therefore DENY petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis upon a showing of financial necessity. Objections to R&R due by 2/20/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 2/6/2018. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 12, 2018

Filing 9 ORDER ADOPTING 8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Accordingly, respondents motion to dismiss (Doc. 5) is GRANTED. The petition for awrit of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice onthe ground that the petition is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. §2246(d).. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 3/12/2018. (jlw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

February 6, 2018

Filing 8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 5 Respondent's to Dismiss, 7 Petitioner's Motion for Certificate of Appealability. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT: (1) Respondents motion to dismiss 5 be GRANTED, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus purs uant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 1 be DISMISSED with prejudice on the ground that the petition is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d); (2) A certificate of appealability should not issue with respect to any of the claims for relief alleged in t he petition, and accordingly, Petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability 7 should be DENIED; (3) With respect to any application by petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the Court should certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. & #167; 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in "good faith," and therefore DENY petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis upon a showing of financial necessity. Objections to R&R due by 2/20/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 2/6/2018. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

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: Malone v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Michael Malone
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 Chillicothe Correctional Institution
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?