UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Antwon Cornett, 

 Petitioner,

 vs.

Warden, London Correctional Institution,

 

 Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00624

Judge Michael R. Barrett

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 10) relating to Petitioner’s, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1).

The parties received proper notice under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, which included notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed 

to file objections to the R&R in a timely manner. (Doc. 10); see United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947, 949-950 (6th Cir. 1981). Petitioner filed timely objections (Doc. 19) and 

Respondent filed a response to Petitioner’s objections (Doc. 20).

When the assigned district court judge receives objections to a magistrate judge’s 

R&R on a dispositive matter, the district judge “must determine de novo any part of the 

magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). 

After that review, the district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended 

decision; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with 

instructions.” Id. The Magistrate Judge adequately summarized the procedural 
2

background and pertinent facts of this case in the R&R and the same will not be repeated 

herein.

The Magistrate Judge found that the petition should be denied with prejudice, as it 

is time-barred, equitable tolling is not warranted, and Petitioner has neither argued nor 

otherwise demonstrated that the procedural bar to review should be excused based on a 

colorable showing of actual innocence. (Doc. 10). Petitioner asserts that the R&R “was 

incomplete,” as he has shown “cause and prejudice” and “due diligence since filing motion 

for delayed appeal.”1 (Doc. 19 at PageID 321-22). He argues that the Ohio Court of 

Appeals employed “an objectively unreasonable application” of law when it overruled his 

motion for leave to file a delayed appeal. (Id. at PageID 323, 325-26). He repeats that he 

“was never advised of his right to appeal, of procedure and the time limits involved in 

effectuating the appeal, and of his right to appointed counsel on appeal.” (Id. at PageID 

324). He concludes that equitable tolling is warranted, because his prior incarceration in 

Indiana prevented him from appealing his Ohio sentence any earlier. (Id. at PageID 326).

After a de novo review of the filings in this matter, the Court finds that Petitioner’s 

objections amount to nothing more than a mere disagreement with the R&R. Although he

disagrees with the R&R, his objections simply restate the arguments found in his Petition 

and Reply and fail to present any new argument that convinces the Court that the 

Magistrate Judge erred in her findings and recommendation or that his petition should be 

granted. Compare (Docs. 3, 8), with (Doc. 19). See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3).

In light of the above, it is hereby ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 10) is ADOPTED 

 1 As the Magistrate Judge explained, Petitioner filed motions for leave to file a delayed appeal with the Ohio 

Court of Appeals on August 13, 2014 and again on January 30, 2017. (Doc. 10 at PageID 290-91). The 

Court assumes Petitioner is referencing his January 30, 2017 motion for leave. (Doc. 19 at PageID 322). 
3

and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 3) is 

DISMISSED with prejudice. Moreover, Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability, 

because reasonable jurists would not disagree with the Court's conclusion, and Petitioner 

shall not be granted leave to appeal in forma pauperis, as the Court certifies that any 

appeal would be objectively frivolous.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 _s/ Michael R. Barrett_______

Michael R. Barrett, Judge

United States District Court