MELTON v. TIBBALS, 1:13-CV-1288. (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20140721a03
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jul. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 18, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SARA LIOI, District Judge. Before the Court is the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in the above-entitled action. 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 r
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SARA LIOI, District Judge. Before the Court is the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in the above-entitled action. 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 re..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SARA LIOI, District Judge.
Before the Court is the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in the above-entitled action. 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)(C). In this case, the fourteen-day period has elapsed and no objections have been filed nor has any extension of time been sought. The failure to file written objections to a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation constitutes a waiver of a de novo determination by the district court of an issue covered in the report. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff'd, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation and accepts the same. Respondent's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED. Further, the Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(3), 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
