Lyons v. Warden Toledo Correctional Institution

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS
JAVON LYONS,
Petitioner,
vs.
WARDEN, TOLEDO
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Respondent.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 2: 23-cv-3532
Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal in
forma pauperis. (Doc. 32).
On January 16, 2026, a final Order and Judgment were entered in this case adopting the
United States Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to dismiss the petition for a writ
of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (See Docs. 29, 30). In the final Order,
the Court denied a certificate of appealability and certified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that an appeal would not be taken in “good faith.” (See Doc. 29). For the reasons previously
given by the Court in the final Order (Doc. 29), petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed on
appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 32) should be DENIED. Petitioner remains free, however, to
request in forma pauperis status on appeal and the issuance of a certificate of appealability from
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those specific
Case: 2:23-cv-03532-SDM-KLL Doc #: 34 Filed: 02/18/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting
authority for the objection(s). A judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made. Upon proper objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence, or may
recommit this matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation will
result in a waiver of the right to have the district judge review the Report and Recommendation
de novo and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court
adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United
States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Date: February 18,
2026
Karen L. Litkovitz
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 2:23-cv-03532-SDM-KLL Doc #: 34 Filed: 02/18/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>