IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI

SAMUEL RIDDER, 

 Petitioner,

vs.

WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 

 Respondent.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18-cv-61

Judge Matthew W. McFarland

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOC. 16), ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 12), AND TERMINATING CASE

______________________________________________________________________________

This habeas corpus action is before the Court on Petitioner Samuel Ridder’s 

Objections (Doc. 16) to Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman’s Report and 

Recommendations (Doc. 12). After review of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the 

“Petition”) (Doc. 1), Respondent’s return of writ (Doc. 9), and Petitioner’s Reply (Doc. 11), 

Magistrate Judge Bowman recommended that the Court deny the Petition with prejudice. 

Petitioner moved for an extension of time to file objections to the Report and 

Recommendations on May 21, 2019 and then filed provisional objections (Doc. 14) on 

June 3, 2019 that included a request to file amended objections if his motion for an 

extension of time were granted. On the same day the provisional objections were filed, 

the Court granted Petitioner’s extension of time. (Doc. 15.) Petitioner timely filed his 

amended Objections (Doc. 16) on July 22, 2019. This matter is therefore ripe for review.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the 

Case: 1:18-cv-00061-MWM-SKB Doc #: 18 Filed: 05/01/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 1525
Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court 

finds that Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 16) are not well-taken and are accordingly 

OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 12) in its

entirety and rules as follows:

1. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (Doc. 1) is DENIED with prejudice.

2. A certificate of appealability is DENIED with respect to the claims 

alleged in the Petition, which the Court has concluded are waived 

and procedurally barred from review, 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 

debatable whether this Court is correct in its procedural ruling.

A certificate of appealability is DENIED with respect to the claims 

alleged in the Petition, which have been addressed on the merits, 

because Petitioner has not stated a “viable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right,” nor are the issues presented “adequate to 

deserve encouragement to proceed further.” See Slack, 529 U.S. at 

475. See also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

3. With respect to any application by Petitioner to proceed on appeal in 

forma pauperis, the Court hereby CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this Order adopting the Magistrate 

Judge’s Report and Recommendation would not be taken in “good 

faith,” and therefore DENIES 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

 By: /s/ Matthew W. McFarland 

JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND

Case: 1:18-cv-00061-MWM-SKB Doc #: 18 Filed: 05/01/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 1526