TACKETT v. RICHLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION WARDEN, 1:14 CV 788. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20150923d38
Visitors: 3
Filed: Sep. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2015
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JACK ZOUHARY , District Judge . This Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's August 28, 2015 Report and Recommendation ("R&R") ( see Doc. 11). The R&R recommends this Court deny in part and dismiss in part Petitioner Dale Tackett's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). Under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), a party must serve written objections to an R&R within fourteen (14) days of being served with the R&R. If a party timely objects, this Court re
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JACK ZOUHARY , District Judge . This Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's August 28, 2015 Report and Recommendation ("R&R") ( see Doc. 11). The R&R recommends this Court deny in part and dismiss in part Petitioner Dale Tackett's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). Under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), a party must serve written objections to an R&R within fourteen (14) days of being served with the R&R. If a party timely objects, this Court rev..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JACK ZOUHARY, District Judge.
This Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's August 28, 2015 Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (see Doc. 11). The R&R recommends this Court deny in part and dismiss in part Petitioner Dale Tackett's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a party must serve written objections to an R&R within fourteen (14) days of being served with the R&R. If a party timely objects, this Court reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections were made. If a party does not timely object, the party waives de novo review by the district court. See United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
Tackett's deadline for filing objections has passed, and this Court has received no requests for extension. The R&R accurately states the facts and law. This Court adopts the R&R in full.
Tackett's Petition (Doc. 1) is denied in part and dismissed in part. This Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith and there is no basis to issue a Certificate of Appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
