Bradshaw v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
DANIEL BRADSHAW,
Petitioner,
vs.
WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:24-cv-360
District Judge Susan J. Dlott
Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254. (Doc. 4). This matter is before the Court on the petition, respondent’s return of writ (Doc.
7) and petitioner’s reply (Doc. 8). For the reasons stated below, it is recommended that the
petition be denied.
I. 	FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Ohio Court of Appeals set forth the following set of facts leading to petitioner’s
convictions and sentence: 1
During the period between September 10, 1991, and September 26, 1991, [J.W.],
then five years of age, and her brother D___ lived with their grandmother, Mamie
Parker. 	Parker’s husband, William, and her daughter, Tonya, also lived at that
residence. On one unspecified afternoon during that period, J____ was watching
television in the living room when Tonya’s boyfriend, Bradshaw, allegedly
summoned her into the bedroom. J_____ claimed that Bradshaw instructed her to
1 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) provides that “[i]n a proceeding instituted by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination of a factual issue made by a State court
shall be presumed correct” unless petitioner rebuts the presumption by “clear and convincing evidence.” Because
petitioner has neither cited nor presented clear and convincing evidence to rebut the Ohio Court of Appeals’ factual
findings quoted herein, the state appellate court’s factual findings are presumed to be correct. See McAdoo v. Elo, 365
F.3d 487, 493-94 (6th Cir. 2004).
Case: 1:24-cv-00360-SJD-SKB Doc #: 9 Filed: 01/05/26 Page: 1 of 13 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
remove her clothing; that Bradshaw then removed his clothing; that Bradshaw got
on top of her and placed his “private part” inside of her; and that Bradshaw advised
her not to disclose to anybody the events that had transpired on that day. J_____
asserted that her attempts to inform Parker about the incident were met with
resistance and hostility. 	Several months later, after telling her mother about the
occurrence, J____ was taken to the hospital. Dr. Robert Siegal testified at trial that
his examination of J_____ revealed that she had sustained an injury to her hymen
which was consistent with sexual penetration. In July 1992, the police were notified
and an investigation was commenced. 	Bradshaw was arrested and subsequently
charged in an indictment with one count of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02. The
case was tried before a jury, and Bradshaw was found guilty as charged and
sentenced as it appears of record.
(Doc. 8, Ex. 8 at PageID 145-46).
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Trial Proceedings
On December 9, 1992, the Hamilton County, Ohio, grand jury returned an indictment
charging petitioner with one count of rape. (Doc. 6, Ex. 1). Petitioner entered a not-guilty plea.
(Doc. 6, Ex. 2).
On July 23, 1993, following a jury trial, petitioner was found guilty of the single count of
rape charged in the indictment. (Doc. 6, Ex. 3). Petitioner was sentenced to serve a life sentence
in the Ohio Department of Corrections. (Doc. 6, Ex. 4).
Direct Appeal
Petitioner, through counsel, filed a notice of appeal to the Ohio Court of Appeals. (Doc.
6, Ex. 5). In his appellate brief, petitioner raised the following eight assignments of error:
I. 	THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN EXCLUDING THE TESTIMONY OF
TONYA COLEMAN AND IN STRIKING FROM THE RECORD HER
PRIOR 	TESTIMONY 	(T. 	p. 	262) 	ON 	THE 	BASIS 	THAT 	SHE
VIOLATED 	AN 	ORDER 	OF 	SEPARATION. 	APPELLANT 	WAS
PREJUDICED BY THIS ERROR.
Case: 1:24-cv-00360-SJD-SKB Doc #: 9 Filed: 01/05/26 Page: 2 of 13 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
II. 	THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN EXCLUDING THE TESTIMONY OF
TONYA COLEMAN AND IN STRIKING FROM THE RECORD HER
TESTIMONY PRIOR TO THE POINT OF EXCLUSION (T.p. 262). THIS
EXCLUSION AND STRIKING CONSTITUTED A DENIAL OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE. APPELLANT
WAS PREJUDICED THEREBY.
III. 	THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF FORCE TO SUPPORT THE JURY’S
VERDICT (T.d. 48). APPELLANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE ENTRY
OF SENTENCE THEREON.
IV. 	THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT JUDGMENT ON
THE ISSUE OF FORCE ON THE APPELLANT’S RULE 29 MOTION
FILED AT THE END OF THE STATE’S EVIDENCE (T.p. 208).
APPELLANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THIS ERROR.
V. 	THE 	JURY'S 	VERDICT 	(T.d. 	48), 	WHICH 	REQUIRED 	A
CONCLUSION THAT DANIEL BRADSHAW RAPED J____ W_____,
WAS CONTRARY TO THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
APPELLANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THIS ERROR.
VI. 	THE STATE'S ATTORNEY COMMITTED VARIOUS MISCONDUCT
THROUGHOUT 	THE 	TRIAL 	AND 	THEREBY 	DENIED 	DANIEL
BRADSHAW A FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW (T.p. 98-
360). APPELLANT WAS PREJUDICED THEREBY.
VII. 	DANIEL BRADSHAW WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL IN THE TRIAL BELOW, SUCH DENIAL CONSTITUTES
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW. WAS PREJUDICED BY THIS
DENIAL.
VIII. 	THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS RULING THAT VEL WEAVER
COULD TESTIFY AS TO THE HEARSAY STATEMENTS OF J_____
W______ 	IDENTIFYING 	THE 	PERSON 	WHO 	ALLEGEDLY
SEXUALLY ASSAULTED J_____ W______ (T.p. 170). APPELLANT
WAS PREJUDICED THEREBY.
(Doc. 6, Ex. 6). On September 21, 1994, the Ohio Court of Appeals overruled petitioner’s
assignments of error and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. (Doc. 6, Ex. 8).
Petitioner, through counsel, filed a notice of appeal and memorandum in support of
Case: 1:24-cv-00360-SJD-SKB Doc #: 9 Filed: 01/05/26 Page: 3 of 13 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
jurisdiction in the Ohio Supreme Court. (See Doc. 6, Ex. 28). On February 15, 1995, the Ohio
Supreme Court denied leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal as not involving any substantial
constitutional question. (Doc. 6, Ex. 9).
Delayed Application to Reopen
On January 30, 2023, more than twenty-five years later, petitioner filed a delayed
application to reopen his direct appeal pursuant to Ohio App. R. 26(B). (Doc. 6, Ex. 10).
Petitioner based his motion on the following claims:
I. 	APPELLANT’S TRIAL COUNSEL AND APPELLATE COUNSEL’S
PERFORMANCE FELL BELOW THE OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF
REASONABLENESS WHERE BOTH FAILED TO INVESTIGATE THE
FACTS, 	KNOW 	THE 	LAW, 	RAISE 	ANY 	CONSTITUTIONAL
VIOLATIONS OR SUBJECT THE PROSECUTIONS CASE TO ANY
MEANINGFUL 	ADVERSARIAL 	TESTING 	AS 	THE 	STATE
WITHHELD EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENSE. 	THIS
WAS A VIOLATION OF APPELLANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
TO A FAIR TRIAL AND EFFECTIVE APPELLATE REVIEW, OHIO
CONSTITUTION 	SECTION 	16, 	ARTICLE 	I, 	THE 	FIFTH 	AND
FOURTEENTH 	AMENDMENTS 	OF 	THE 	UNITED 	STATES
CONSTITUTION, AND FEDERAL DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
II. 	APPELLATE COUNSEL ERRED IN VIOLATION OF STRICKLAND
WHEN APPELLATE COUNSEL FAILED TO CHALLENGE JURY
INSTRUCTIONS AND NUMEROUS CRITICAL DOCUMENTS THAT
TRIAL COUNSEL PURPOSELY NEGLECTED TO SUBMIT FOR
TRIAL, 	KNOWINGLY 	LYING 	IN 	OPEN 	COURT 	ABOUT 	SAID
DOCUMENTS WHEN IT DETERMINED THERE WAS NO BRADY
MATERIALS IN THE SEALED RECORDS. A VIOLATION OF OHIO
CONSTITUTION, SECTION 16, ARTICLE I, AND THE UNITED
STATES 	CONSTITUTION, 	FIFTH 	AND 	FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS, AS WELL AS IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.
III. 	THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT
IMPOSED PRISON SENTENCE AGAINST APPELLANT WITHOUT
MAKING STATUTORILY MANDATED FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF
SENTENCE IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT RIGHTS UNDER THE
Case: 1:24-cv-00360-SJD-SKB Doc #: 9 Filed: 01/05/26 Page: 4 of 13 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
FOURTEENTH 	AMENDMENT 	TO 	THE 	UNITED 	STATES
CONSTITUTION, AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO
CONSTITUTION.
(Doc. 6, Ex. 10). On March 30, 2023, the Ohio appeals court denied the application to reopen,
finding the application to be untimely and that petitioner failed to demonstrate good cause for the
delay. (Doc. 6, Ex. 13).
Petitioner appealed the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court (Doc. 6, Ex. 14, 15), which
declined jurisdiction over the appeal on July 5, 2023. (Doc. 6, Ex. 16).
Petition to Vacate or Set Aside Judgment of Conviction or Sentence
Next, on August 3, 2023, petitioner filed a petition to vacate or set aside judgment of
conviction in the trial court. (Doc. 6, Ex. 17). On August 16, 2023, the trial court denied the
petition as untimely. (Doc. 6, Ex. 19).
Petitioner did not seek review of the trial court’s decision in the Ohio Court of Appeals.
New Trial Motions
On November 13, 2023, petitioner filed a motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a
new trial and a motion for a new trial. (Doc. 6, Ex. 20, 23). Petitioner based his motions on
documents allegedly withheld from discovery in his criminal trial. Petitioner indicated that he
did not become aware of the documents until April 2021. (See id. at PageID 221). On
December 20, 2023, the trial court denied petitioner’s motions. (Doc. 6, Ex. 22, 25).
Petitioner did not seek further review of the trial court’s denial of his motions.
Federal Habeas Corpus
On July 2, 2024, petitioner filed the instant federal habeas corpus action. 	(See Doc. 1).
Petitioner raises the following four grounds for relief in the petition:
Case: 1:24-cv-00360-SJD-SKB Doc #: 9 Filed: 01/05/26 Page: 5 of 13 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
GROUND ONE: Procedural Due Process Violation of (HCDHS) Social Worker
Amy Hoover.
Supporting Facts: Hamilton County Department of Human Services received a 241-
KIDS call April 16, 1992, alleging sexual abuse. 	No one contacted law
enforcement within 24hrs. An interview of Jamita was conducted April 17, 1992
& a doctor’s appointment was scheduled for May 4, 1992 (Amy Hoover being
present). Amy Hoover didn’t file a police report until July 28, 1992, 2 months after
the initial, April 16, 1992 241-KIDS call.
GROUND TWO: Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel.
Supporting Facts: Trial counsel failed to hire the expert assistance of a court
approved psychologist/psychotherapist & motion the court to review & investigate
the confidential children service records of: (1) April 16, 1992 241-KIDS call, (2)
April 17, 1992 interview of Jamita Weaver, (3) Amy Hoover file, (4) Vel Weaver
mental health records (history of mental illness & drug & alcohol addiction) for
materiality.
GROUND 	THREE: 	Brady 	Violation—Prosecutorial 	misconduct 	suppressed
exculpatory & impeachable evidence (Giglio Error).
Supporting Facts: 7-22-93, the prosecution submitted an exhibit into evidence of
social services timeline of events, that reveals the fact that the prosecution was
aware that the initial allegation was reported to social services April 16, 1992 that
was never reported to law enforcement.
GROUND FOUR: Right of Confrontation. 	Withheld Brady materials impeded
cross-examination & deprived defendant of a fair trial.
Supporting Facts: The suppressed evidence are confidential children service
records that are in exclusive possession of the state, only way they can be reviewed
if the prosecution make the defense aware in response to a discovery request then
the defense counsel has to hire expert assistance of a psychologist & motion the
court to review the records & determine materiality, which wasn’t done in this case.
(Doc. 4 at PageID 41-46).
Respondent has filed a return of writ in opposition to the petition, to which petitioner has
replied. (Doc. 7, 8). According to respondent, petitioner’s grounds for relief are time-barred,
non-cognizable, procedurally defaulted, and/or without merit.
Case: 1:24-cv-00360-SJD-SKB Doc #: 9 Filed: 01/05/26 Page: 6 of 13 PAGEID #: <pageID>

7
II. ANALYSIS.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), as amended by § 101 of the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, a person in custody
pursuant to the judgment of a state court must file an application for a writ of habeas corpus
within one year from the latest of:
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review
or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action
in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the
applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by
the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court
and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could
have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), the limitations period is tolled during the
pendency of a properly filed application for state post-conviction relief or other collateral review.
In this case, under § 2244(d)(1)(A), the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed petitioner’s
appeal on February 15, 1995. (Doc. 6, Ex. 9). Because “direct review” of petitioner’s conviction
included review by the United States Supreme Court, see Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327,
333 (2007); Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 527-528 (2003); Bronaugh v. Ohio, 235 F.3d
280, 283 (6th Cir. 2000), the statute of limitations ordinarily would began to run on May 16,
1995, when the ninety-day period expired for filing a petition for certiorari to the United States
Supreme Court from the state supreme court’s decision. Clay, 537 U.S. at 525; Bronaugh, 235
F.3d at 283. However, because petitioner’s conviction became final prior to the effective date of
Case: 1:24-cv-00360-SJD-SKB Doc #: 9 Filed: 01/05/26 Page: 7 of 13 PAGEID #: <pageID>

8
the AEDPA, petitioner was entitled to a one-year grace period running from April 24, 1996, the
act’s effective date. Cook v. Stegall, 295 F.3d 517, 519 (6th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, the
limitations period expired on April 24, 1997 absent the application of the statutory tolling
provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) or any other applicable tolling principles. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 6(a); Bronaugh v. Ohio, 235 F.3d 280, 285 (6th Cir. 2000).
Petitioner has not argued that the statute of limitations is governed by § 2244(d)(1)(D) in
this case. However, petitioner seeks habeas relief based on evidence allegedly withheld by the
prosecution in his criminal trial. Specifically, petitioner argues that the prosecution withheld
evidence of an April 16, 1992 phone call reporting sexual abuse in Ground Three of the petition.
Petitioner acknowledges that his claims rely on exhibits that were submitted at trial on July 22,
1993, however he claims he was not aware of the evidence until April 14, 2021. (See Doc. 4 at
PageID 50; Doc. 6, Ex. 15 at PageID 198).
As argued by respondent (see Doc. 7 at PageID 683-84), under § 2244(d)(1)(D) the
limitations period begins when the factual predicate of the claims could have been discovered
through the exercise of due diligence, not when petitioner actually became aware of it. In any
event, even assuming without deciding that the limitations period began to run on April 14, 2021,
the petition is still time-barred. In that scenario the limitations period expired on April 14, 2022.
Because petitioner did not file the instant petition until July 2, 2024, more than two years later,
the petition is time-barred absent any applicable tolling.
No statutory tolling applies under Section 2244(d)(2) to extend the limitations period in
this case. During the one-year limitations period, petitioner was entitled to tolling of the statute
under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) based on any pending “properly filed” applications for state post-
Case: 1:24-cv-00360-SJD-SKB Doc #: 9 Filed: 01/05/26 Page: 8 of 13 PAGEID #: <pageID>

9
conviction relief or other collateral review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see also Holland v.
Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 635 (2010); Allen v. Siebert, 552 U.S. 3, 4 (2007) (per curiam); Vroman
v. Brigano, 346 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2003). However, petitioner took no further action in the
state courts until January 30, 2023, when he filed a delayed application to reopen his direct
appeal.2 (Doc. 6, Ex. 10). Because the limitations period had already expired on April 14, 2022,
the application and petitioner’s subsequent state-court filings do not operate to toll the limitations
period. See Vroman, 346 F.3d at 602.
The AEDPA’s statute of limitations is subject to equitable tolling, see Holland, 560 U.S.
at 645, “when a litigant’s failure to meet a legally-mandated deadline unavoidably arose from
circumstances beyond the litigant’s control.” Hall v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst., 662 F.3d
745, 749 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Robertson v. Simpson, 624 F.3d 781, 783 (6th Cir. 2010)).
Equitable tolling is granted “sparingly.” Id. (quoting Robertson, 624 F.3d at 784). A habeas
petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling only if he establishes that (1) “he has been pursuing his
rights diligently;” and (2) “some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented
timely filing.” Id. (quoting Holland, 560 U.S. at 649 (internal quotations omitted)); see also
Pace, 544 U.S. at 418. Although the Sixth Circuit previously utilized a five-factor approach in
determining whether a habeas petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling, Holland’s two-part test
2 The undersigned notes that because the Ohio Court of Appeals denied the 26(B) application as untimely, the post-
conviction petition would not serve to toll the statute of limitations in this case even if filed during the limitations
period. A Rule 26(B) application to reopen an appeal is a collateral, post-conviction relief procedure, which, if
“properly filed,” can toll the running of the statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). See also Lopez v.
Wilson, 426 F.3d 339, 352 (6th Cir. 2005); Smith v. Warden, 789 F. App’x 208, 223 (6th Cir. 2019). However, in this
case, the Ohio Court of Appeals denied the application untimely (see Doc. 6, Ex. 10), rending it improperly filed for
the purposes of tolling the AEDPA limitations period. See Pace, 544 U.S. at 417 (“Because the state court rejected
petitioner’s [post-conviction relief] petition as untimely, it was not ‘properly filed,’ and hence he is not entitled to
statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2).”).
Case: 1:24-cv-00360-SJD-SKB Doc #: 9 Filed: 01/05/26 Page: 9 of 13 PAGEID #: <pageID>

10
has replaced the five-factor inquiry as the “governing framework” to apply. Hall, 662 F.3d at
750 (citing Robinson v. Easterling, 424 F. App’x 439, 442 n.1 (6th Cir. 2011)). “With Holland
now on the books, the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ test, which requires both reasonable
diligence and an extraordinary circumstance, has become the law of this circuit.” Id.; see also
Patterson v. Lafler, 455 F. App’x 606, 609 n.1 (6th Cir. 2012).
Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is entitled to equitable tolling in this case. First,
petitioner has not shown that he has been diligent in pursuing his rights. The Sixth Circuit has
indicated that the relevant inquiry in determining whether equitable tolling applies is whether
petitioner was diligent in pursuing federal habeas relief. In this case, petitioner waited more than
28 years to file his habeas petition after his conviction and sentence became final under §
2244(d)(1)(A). Petitioner also waited 1,175 days—more than three years (from April, 14, 2021
to July 2, 2024)—from the date he claims to have discovered the evidence underlying his petition
until he filed his federal habeas corpus petition. Accordingly, petitioner has not demonstrated
that he was diligent in pursuing his federal rights. Vroman v. Brigano, 346 F.3d 598, 605 (6th
Cir. 2003) (finding that petitioner’s decision to proceed solely in state court “rather than filing
his federal habeas petition and protecting his federal constitutional rights, demonstrates a lack of
diligence”). Second, petitioner has not argued much less demonstrated that he was prevented by
some extraordinary circumstance from seeking relief in a timely manner.
To the extent that plaintiff claims he is entitled to equitable tolling based on his pro se
status (see Doc. 4 at PageID 49-50), it is well-settled in the Sixth Circuit that petitioner’s pro se
status, lack of legal knowledge, or lack of access to legal materials are not sufficient to warrant
equitable tolling. See, e.g., Hall, 662 F.3d at 750-51 (rejecting the petitioner’s argument that he
Case: 1:24-cv-00360-SJD-SKB Doc #: 9 Filed: 01/05/26 Page: 10 of 13 PAGEID #: <pageID>

11
was entitled to equitable tolling because of his lack of access to the trial transcript, as well as his
pro se status and limited law-library access); Allen v. Yukins, 366 F.3d 396, 403 (6th Cir. 2004)
(quoting Rose v. Dole, 945 F.2d 1331, 1335 (6th Cir. 1991)) (“this court has repeatedly held that
‘ignorance of the law alone is not sufficient to warrant equitable tolling’”). Petitioner has
therefore failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to equitable tolling and the petition is time-
barred.
Finally, petitioner has not demonstrated that the procedural bar to review should be
excused based on a colorable showing of actual innocence. “To invoke the miscarriage of justice
exception to AEDPA’s statute of limitations, . . . a petitioner ‘must show that it is more likely
than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in the light of . . . new evidence.’”
McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 399 (2013) (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327
(1995)). No such showing has been made in this case.
Accordingly, in sum, the undersigned concludes that the instant federal habeas corpus
petition is barred from review by the one-year statute of limitations governing habeas corpus
actions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. The petition (Doc. 4) be DENIED with prejudice on the ground that it 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 the petition, which this Court has concluded are barred from review on a
procedural ground, because under the first prong of the applicable two-part standard enunciated
in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000), “jurists of reason” would not find it
Case: 1:24-cv-00360-SJD-SKB Doc #: 9 Filed: 01/05/26 Page: 11 of 13 PAGEID #: <pageID>

12
debatable whether the Court is correct in its procedural ruling.3
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. § 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. See Fed. R.
App. P. 24(a); Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 1997).
s/Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Chief Magistrate Judge
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of
the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations. 	This period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected
to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections
3 Because the first prong of the Slack test has not been met, the Court need not address the second prong of Slack as
to whether “jurists of reason” would find it debatable whether petitioner has stated a viable constitutional claim in
his time-barred grounds for relief. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.
Case: 1:24-cv-00360-SJD-SKB Doc #: 9 Filed: 01/05/26 Page: 12 of 13 PAGEID #: <pageID>

13
WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Case: 1:24-cv-00360-SJD-SKB Doc #: 9 Filed: 01/05/26 Page: 13 of 13 PAGEID #: <pageID>