The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
CHRISTOPHER D. BROWN,
Petitioner, Case No. 3:23-cv-305
vs.
WARDEN, London Correctional District Judge Michael J. Newman
Institution, Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
Respondent.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. No. 15) TO THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) ADOPTING THE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 12); (3) DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE
THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. No. 3); (3) DENYING ANY
REQUESTED CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; (4) CERTIFYING THAT AN
APPEAL OF THIS ORDER WOULD BE OBJECTIVELY FRIVOLOUS AND FINDING
THAT PETITIONER SHOULD BE DENIED IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON
APPEAL; (5) AND TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE DOCKET
______________________________________________________________________________
Petitioner Christopher D. Brown brings this case pro se seeking a writ of habeas corpus,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Doc. No. 3. The case is before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz (Doc. No. 12), to whom this
case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Judge Merz recommends that this Court dismiss
the petition with prejudice. Doc. No. 8 at PageID 607. Petitioner timely filed objections to the Report
and Recommendation. Doc. No. 15. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b),
the Court has reviewed Judge Merz’s comprehensive findings and considered de novo all filings in
this matter, including Petitioner’s objections.
1 The Court liberally construes Petitioner’s pro se filings in his favor. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976); see also Mayes v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst., No. 3:22-cv-313, 2024 WL 3163957, at *1 (S.D.
Ohio June 25, 2024).
Upon careful de novo review of the foregoing, the Court determines that the Judge Merz’s
Report and Recommendation applies the correct law, is well reasoned, and should be ADOPTED.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s Objections are OVERRULED, the Report and Recommendation is
ADOPTED, and the Petition is DISMISSED. Petitioner is DENIED any requested certificate of
appealability, and the Court hereby CERTIFIES to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit that an appeal of this Order would be objectively frivolous and, therefore, Petitioner should
not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 8, 2024 s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge