BANKS v. BUNTING, 1:14-CV-01945. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20150616a88
Visitors: 1
Filed: Jun. 15, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 15, 2015
Summary: OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 8 ] JAMES S. GWIN , District Judge . Petitioner Geoffrey Banks moves to dismiss, without prejudice, his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. 1 On May 18, 2015, Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke issued an Interim Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that the Court deny Banks' motion. 1 Banks has not filed an objection to the R&R. The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of those
Summary: OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 8 ] JAMES S. GWIN , District Judge . Petitioner Geoffrey Banks moves to dismiss, without prejudice, his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. 1 On May 18, 2015, Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke issued an Interim Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that the Court deny Banks' motion. 1 Banks has not filed an objection to the R&R. The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of those ..
More
OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 8]
JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.
Petitioner Geoffrey Banks moves to dismiss, without prejudice, his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 On May 18, 2015, Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke issued an Interim Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that the Court deny Banks' motion.1 Banks has not 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 an R&R to which the parties have made an objection.2 Parties must file any objections to an R&R within fourteen days of service.3 Failure to object within that time waives a party's right to appeal the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.4 Absent objection, a district court may adopt the Magistrate Judge's report without review.5
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Burke's findings of fact and conclusions of law and incorporates them fully herein by reference. The Court DENIES Banks' motion to dismiss his petition without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Doc. 8.
1. Doc. 11.
2. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
3. N.D. Ohio L.R. 72.3(b).
4. Id.; see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 145 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
5. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149.
Source: Leagle
