Degahson v. Olds

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
ULONDA EVETTE DEGAHSON,
Petitioner, Case No. 3:26-cv-125
v.
SHANNON OLDS, WARDEN, District Judge Michael J. Newman
DAYTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
INSTITUTION,
Respondent.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. No. 16); (2) DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE
PETITIONER’S HABEAS CORPUS PETITION; (3) DENYING ANY REQUESTED
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; (4) CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL WOULD
NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND THAT PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE DENIED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL; AND (5) TERMINATING THIS CASE ON
THE DOCKET
______________________________________________________________________________
Petitioner is an inmate in state custody. Doc. No. 1. She brings this case pro se seeking a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Id. The case is before the Court on the Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Merz (Doc. No. 16), to whom this
case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Judge Merz recommends that this Court dismiss
with prejudice Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition (Doc. No. 1). Doc. No. 16 at PageID 935–36.
Petitioner did not file objections to the R&R, and the time for doing so under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)
has passed.
The Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of Judge Merz and considered all filings
in this matter. Liberally construing Petitioner’s pro se filings in her favor, see Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), the Court concludes that the R&R is well-reasoned, cogently written, and
not “clearly erroneous or … contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
Case: 3:26-cv-00125-MJN-MRM Doc #: 17 Filed: 10/16/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety and DISMISSES WITH
PREJUDICE Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition. Doc. No. 16. Petitioner is DENIED any
requested certificate of appealability, and the Court CERTIFIES to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and,
therefore, Petitioner should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. This case is
TERMINATED on the docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 16, 2026 s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
Case: 3:26-cv-00125-MJN-MRM Doc #: 17 Filed: 10/16/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>