Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Morales v. Eppinger, 5:17-CV-2629. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio Number: infdco20181231992 Visitors: 10
Filed: Dec. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Ruiz's Report and Recommendation (ECF DKT #10) to grant Respondent LaShann Eppinger's Motion to Dismiss (ECF DKT #8) and dismiss Petitioner Marcel Morales's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 (ECF DKT #1) as time-barred. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by December 11, 2018. Petitioner has not filed an objection to th
More

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Ruiz's Report and Recommendation (ECF DKT #10) to grant Respondent LaShann Eppinger's Motion to Dismiss (ECF DKT #8) and dismiss Petitioner Marcel Morales's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF DKT #1) as time-barred. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by December 11, 2018. Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after service. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). Petitioner has failed to timely file any such objections. Therefore, the Court must assume that Petitioner is satisfied with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Any further review by this Court would be duplicative and an inefficient use of the Court's limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, GRANTS Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSES Petitioner's Petition as time-barred.

The Court finds an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Since Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right directly related to his conviction or custody, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); FED. R. APP. P. 22(b); Rule 11 of Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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