Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Winchester v. Potter, 5:17-cv-532. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio Number: infdco20190125e74 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 24, 2019
Summary: OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 4] JAMES S. GWIN , District Judge . On March 14, 2017, James Winchester filed a 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition. 1 On August 13, 2018, Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp II recommended that the Court deny Winchester's petition because it was not timely filed. 2 Any objections to Magistrate Judge Knepp's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") were due by August 27, 2018. Despite the Court granting Petitioner Winchester's motion for an extension of time to object,
More

OPINION & ORDER

[Resolving Doc. 4]

On March 14, 2017, James Winchester filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition.1 On August 13, 2018, Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp II recommended that the Court deny Winchester's petition because it was not timely filed.2

Any objections to Magistrate Judge Knepp's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") were due by August 27, 2018. Despite the Court granting Petitioner Winchester's motion for an extension of time to object,3 neither he nor Respondent Mary Potter filed an objection to the R&R.

The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of those portions of a R&R to which the parties have made an objection.4 Absent objection, a district court may adopt the R&R without review.5 Because no party has objected to the R&R, this Court may adopt the R&R without further review. Moreover, having conducted its own review of the petition and record, the Court agrees with the conclusions in the R&R.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Knepp's R&R and incorporates it fully herein by reference. The Court DENIES Winchester's habeas petition. Furthermore, the Court certifies that no basis exists upon which to issue a certificate of appealability.6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Doc. 4. Respondent Potter returns the writ. Doc. 12. Petitioner Winchester files a traverse to the return of writ. Doc. 15. Respondent Potter surreplies. Doc. 16.
2. Doc. 17.
3. Doc. 19.
4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
5. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985). Failure to timely object waives a party's right to appeal the magistrate judge's R&R. Id. at 155; United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
6. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer