Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Inskeep v. Timmerman-Cooper

September 7, 2006

STEVEN L. INSKEEP PETITIONER,
v.
D. TIMMERMAN-COOPER, WARDEN RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Thomas M. Rose United States District Judge

District Judge Thomas M. Rose

Chief Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING STEVEN L. INSKEEP'S OBJECTIONS (Doc. #35) TO CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL R. MERZ'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. #34); OVERRULING INSKEEP'S OBJECTIONS (Doc. #37) TO CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE MERZ'S SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. #36); ADOPTING CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE MERZ'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND TERMINATING THIS CASE

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Petitioner Steven L. Inskeep's ("Inskeep's") Objections (doc. #35) to the Report and Recommendations of Chief Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz (doc. #34) and Inskeep's Objections (doc. #37) to the Supplemental Report and Recommendations of Chief Magistrate Judge Merz (doc. #36). The Report and Recommendations and the Supplemental Report and Recommendations addresses Inskeep's application for a certificate of appealability.

The Chief Magistrate Judge initially entered a Report and Recommendations regarding Inskeep's Petition. (Doc. #34.) After receiving objections from Inskeep, the Chief Magistrate Judge issued a Supplemental Report and Recommendations. (Doc. #36.) The Warden did not file objections to either the Report and Recommendations or the Supplemental Report and Recommendations. Inskeep's Objections to the Report and Recommendations and to the Supplemental Report and Recommendations are, therefore, ripe for decision.

The Chief Magistrate Judge found that a certificate of appealability should not be granted on Grounds One, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight or Nine for Relief and that a certificate of appealability should be granted on Ground Two for Relief. Ground Two for relief is based upon insufficient evidence.

As required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 72(b), the District Judge has made a de novo review of the record in this case regarding Inskeep's application for a certification of appealability. Upon said review, the Court finds that Inskeep's objections to the Chief Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and Inskeep's objections to the Chief Magistrate Judge's Supplemental Report and Recommendations are not well-taken, and they are hereby OVERRULED..

The Report and Recommendations and the Supplemental Report and Recommendations are adopted in their entirety. Inskeep is granted a certificate of appealability on Ground Two and is denied a certificate of appealability on Grounds One, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight and Nine. The captioned cause is hereby ordered terminated upon the docket records of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, at Dayton.

DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio this Seventh day of September, 2006.

20060907

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.