SHEPPARD v. WARDEN, LEBANON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 1:08-cv-00298. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20141210d21
Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 09, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 09, 2014
Summary: ORDER S. ARTHUR SPIEGEL, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the November 20, 2014 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz (doc. 34), to which there has been no objection. Having reviewed this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), we find no clear error 1 within it and, indeed, conclude that said Report and Recommendation is a thorough, well-reasoned and correct evaluation of the record. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the November
Summary: ORDER S. ARTHUR SPIEGEL, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the November 20, 2014 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz (doc. 34), to which there has been no objection. Having reviewed this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), we find no clear error 1 within it and, indeed, conclude that said Report and Recommendation is a thorough, well-reasoned and correct evaluation of the record. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the November 2..
More
ORDER
S. ARTHUR SPIEGEL, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the November 20, 2014 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz (doc. 34), to which there has been no objection. Having reviewed this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), we find no clear error1 within it and, indeed, conclude that said Report and Recommendation is a thorough, well-reasoned and correct evaluation of the record. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the November 20, 2014 Report and Recommendation (doc. 34) in its entirety. Petitioner's pro se Motion for Relief from Judgment (doc. 32) is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for consideration under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. See Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings").
Source: Leagle
