Barrow v. Lazaroff, 1:16CV2076. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20180828e58
Visitors: 6
Filed: Aug. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 27, 2018
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER DAN AARON POLSTER , District Judge . This case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp ("R&R"). ( Doc #: 18. ) The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss Richard Barrow's Petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254 because Grounds Two-Four are procedurally defaulted and Ground One is meritless. Under the relevant statute: Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER DAN AARON POLSTER , District Judge . This case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp ("R&R"). ( Doc #: 18. ) The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss Richard Barrow's Petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254 because Grounds Two-Four are procedurally defaulted and Ground One is meritless. Under the relevant statute: Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections ..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
DAN AARON POLSTER, District Judge.
This case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp ("R&R"). (Doc #: 18.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss Richard Barrow's Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because Grounds Two-Four are procedurally defaulted and Ground One is meritless.
Under the relevant statute:
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (emphasis added). In this case, the R&R was issued on August 3, 2018, and it is now August 27, 2018. Twenty-four days have elapsed since the R&R was issued, and Petitioner has neither filed objections nor a request for an extension of time to file them. The failure to timely file written objections to an R&R constitutes a waiver of a de novo review by the district court of any issues covered in the R&R. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Despite the lack of objections, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's thorough, well-written R&R, and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's findings. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. (Doc #: 18). Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the § 2254 Petition (Doc #: 1).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
